~)
^^™i i o 4 i
AMHERST COLLEGE
310212 3111 4592 3
MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER
POWERLESSNESS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOR
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELEARE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
ON
MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
APRIL 15, 1970
PART 7-B
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER
POWERLESSNESS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGEATOEY LABOB
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
ON
MANPOWER AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
APRIL 15, 1970
PART 7-B
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-513 O WASHINGTON : 1971
COMMITTEE OX LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
RALPH YARBOROUGH, Texas, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., New Jersey WINSTON L. PROUTY. Vermont
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island PETER H. DOMINICK. Colorado
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California
GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
WALTER P. MONDALE, Minnesota WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri RALPH TYLER SMITH, Illinois
ALAN CRANSTON, California
HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa
Robert O. Harris, Staff Director
John S. Forsythe, General Counsel
Roy H. Millenson, Minority Staff Director
Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel
Subcommittee on Migbatory Labob
WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota, Chairman
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., New Jersey WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GEORGE MURPHY, California
ALAN CRANSTON, California RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa RALPH TYLER SMITH, Illinois
Boren Chertkov, Counsel
Eugene Mittelman, Minority Counsel
(II)
Format of Hearings on Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
PoWERLESSNESS
The Subcommittee on Migratory Labor conducted public hearings
in Washington, D.C., during the 91st Congress on "Migrant and Sea-
sonal Farmworker Powerlessness/' These hearings are contained in
the following parts :
Subject matter Hearing dates
Part 1: Who Are the Migrants? June 9 and 10, 1969
Part 2 : The Migrant Subculture July 28, 1969
Part 3-A: Efforts To Organize July 15, 1969
Part 3-B: Efforts To Organize July 16 and 17, 1969
Part 4-A : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 7, 1969
Part 4-B : Farmworker Legal Problems Aug. 8, 1969
Part 5-A : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 21, 1969
Part 5-B : Border Commuter Labor Problem May 22, 1969
Part 6-A : Pesticides and the Farmworker Aug. 1, 1969
Part 6-B : Pesticides and the Farmworker Sept. 29, 1969
Part 6-C : Pesticides and the Farmworker Sept. 30, 1969
Part 7-A : Manpower and Economic Problems April 14, 1970
Part 7-B : Manpower and Economic Problems April 15, 1970
Part 8: Who Is Responsible? July 20, 21, and 24, 1970
(hi)
CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Wednesday, April 15, 1970
Sturt, Daniel, director, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State Paee
University 4527
Gnaizda, Robert, deputy director, California Rural Legal Assistance, San
Francisco, Calif 4589
STATEMENTS
Gnaizda, Robert, deputy director, California Rural Legal Assistance, San
Francisco, Calif 4589
Prepared statement, with attachments 4590
Migrant Research Project, Washington, D.C., prepared statement 4822
Sturt, Daniel, director, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State
University 4527
Prepared statement, with attachments 4565
Trout, Grafton, professor of sociology, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Mich., comprehensive statement 4533
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Articles, publications, etc. :
"Agribusiness, U.S.A. : Management Responsible Only to Itself," by
A. V. Krebs, Jr 4754
"Alternative Policies for Increasing the Earnings of Migratory Farm
Workers," by Herrington J. Bryee, member, research staff, the Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C., and member, economics faculty, Clark
University, Massachusetts, reprinted from Public Policy 4707
"Human Relations on Michigan Fruit and Vegetable Farms," excerpts
from, by Maurice E. Voland, Department of Sociology, Michigan
State University 4579
"In Aid of the Mexican- American : A Proposal To Aid Mexican- Ameri-
can Farm Workers," by Mark Erenburg, Department of Economics,
Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind 4775
"Labor Waste in New York : Rural Exploitation and Migrant Work-
ers," by William H. Friedland. reprinted from Trans-action 4747
"Mexican Immigration and American Labor Demands," by Julian
Samora and Jorge Bustamante 4783
"The Measurement and Interpretation of the Earnings of Migratory
Farm Workers," by Herrington J. Bryce, member, research staff,
the Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., and member, economics fac-
ulty, Clark University, Massachusetts 4725
Selected court briefs 4604
(V)
MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER
POWERLESSNESS
Manpower and Economic Problems
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970
UjS. Senate,
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor
of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232,
New Senate Office Building, Senator Walter Mondale (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senator Mondale.
Committee staff members present : Boren Chertkov, majority coun-
sel; Dr. Mark Erenburg, economic consultant, and Eugene Mittel-
man, minority counsel.
Senator Mondale. The subcommittee will come to order. This morn-
ing we continue our investigation of economic and manpower prob-
lems of farmworkers.
Our first witness this morning is Dr. Daniel Sturt, director of the
Eural Manpower Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Mich.
We appreciate having you here this morning. Do you have a written
statement ? You may proceed as you wish.
I might note, Dr. Sturt, that this subcommittee's work has been
plagued from the beginning by the space program, and that explains
the sparse crowd in the hearing room this morning. One of our earlier
hearings was the morning of the first moonshot, and our opening wit-
ness was scheduled to start, the same moment as blastoff. Now, some of
the Nation's attention is turned to the aborted moonshot. Many news-
men think that is more interesting than what we have to say.
I don't know if there is any correlation or not between migrant farm-
worker problems and moonshots.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL STURT, DIRECTOR, RURAL MANPOWER
CENTER, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sturt. I am sure that the news on the space program is very
difficult to compete with these days.
I have a statement that I would like to submit as well as a variety
of publications out of the Rural Manpower Center at Michigan State.
I believe we are the only rural manpower center in the United States.
4527
4528
Senator Mondale. Proceed with your statement, and we will include
such parts as you think appropriate in the record at the close of your
remarks, and possibly some of the exhibits will be retained in the
official files of the subcommittee.
Dr. Sturt. In the interest of time it might be a good idea to simply
sketch down through a statement which I prepared and I believe
you have in front of you now on some migrant worker needs.
Senator Mondale. Very well.
Dr. Sturt. There is a quiet crisis smoldering in rural America.
Changes in the economic, political, and social organization in rural
areas have resulted in low returns for resources and low levels of
living. The migratory farmworker is caught up in these changes. Many
migratory farmworkers, farm operators and rural nonfarm residents
are a part of the rural poor, the silent minority in our society that are,
in truth, the people left behind.
To understand the problems confronting the migratory worker, one
must consider what is happening in rural America generally, the
impact of agricultural technology upon rural people and the inade-
quacy of rural institutions in helping rural people solve their prob-
lems. There are, of course, a special set of problems associated with
the migrancy of farmworkers. However, many of the problems con-
fronting migrants are representative of what is happening to agri-
cultural manpower in general, and what is happening to rural people.
The American public has long been enamored with the marvels of
agricultural technology and the cheap food that this technology has
made possible. The agricultural establishment, spearheaded by the
USDA and its land-grant university affiliates, has carried out a mas-
sive research and education effort which has made it possible for Amer-
ican farmers to supply the food and fiber requirements of American
consumers at relatively low prices. The enthusiastic public support
for cheap food policies has tended to place such policies above ques-
tioning.
The cost of cheap food is greater than it at first appears. Among
other considerations, the cost of cheap food must be measured in terms
of what happens to the people involved in the production of this food
and what happens to the rural communities where these people live.
From the overview, it would appear that the cost is high indeed.
The human fallout from unbridled technological innovation includes,
among others, many migrator}' workers.
This is, I might add, the position that the rural manpower center
has taken and it essentially sets the tone for my statement here today.
Perhaps we can skip over the structure of the hired farm, work
force. In looking at some of the other testimony, that has been pre-
sented here, I notice that this data has already been included. In look-
ing at the structure of the hired farm work force, one recognizes that
migrant workers are part of the seasonal farm work force, which is
in turn part of the hired farm work force, which in turn is part of
rural manpower.
There are three migratory worker streams. This has been well
documented.
4529
Many of the so-called social problems associated with the migrant
movement of farmworkers— health, education and other problems —
are due to the fact that our society is not geared to accommodate
farmworkers on the move. Also, community discrimination is a serious
problem as migrants seek to obtain services provided for others more
permanently located, more readily accepted and accommodated in
rural communities. The relatively low status of farm work affects all
hired farmworkers, particularly seasonal workers on the move.
TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE DEMAND FOR SEASONAL WORKERS
Mechanization and new technology, particularly in the harvesting
of fruits and vegetables, is rapidly reducing the requirements for sea-
sonal farmworkers. The rural manpower center task force, estimating
the number of farmworker jobs which will be displaced by 1975 in
the harvesting of fruits and vegetables in the United States, has indi-
cated that there will be some 250,000 fewer jobs in 1975 than 1968.
Senator Mondale. Are you referring to rural employment job
losses?
Dr. Sturt. Yes, sir.
Senator Mondale. Migrants ?
Dr. Sturt. What?
Senator Mondale. Are you saying 250,000 fewer jobs for migrants?
Dr. Sturt. Seasonal farmworkers. One of the problems in dealing
with migrant problems is that we get into a semantics hassle over the
difference between seasonal farmworker's and migrant farmworkers.
Senator Mondale. I ask that because yesterday USDA testified
there was an estimated 250,000 migrants, but you are referring to
total rural employment.
Dr. Sturt. I am talking about in harvesting of fruits and vegetables.
We went through the crops and made estimates of acreages. We spent a
year looking at technology relative to each one of these crops.
Senator Mondale. These are projections that your task force made?
Dr. Sturt. The USDA representative probably used the same data,
because we have been working with the USDA. I think this is con-
servative, incidentally. This includes 53,000 fewer harvest jobs in Cali-
fornia, 50,774 fewer in Oregon, 35,782 fewer in North Carolina, 19,497
fewer in Michigan, 18,271 fewer in Washington, and 13,553 fewer in
Texas. I feel that these estimates are conservative. Many of these jobs
will be those involved in the harvest of grapes, bush and pole beans,
and cucumbers. The 1968 seasonal peak employment by crop and
State is indicated in tables 2 and 3 of the prepared statement.
Senator Mondale. What about employment in sugar beets ? I under-
stand there is a new mechanical harvester being developed.
Dr. Sturt. No, there is not, but the sugar beet situation is a special
story. There is no really fantastic breakthrough relative to sugar beets.
We have had new technology all along and more farmers are begin-
ning to use it.
Senator Mondale. Yesterday the Department of Agriculture made
their first projections about job losses. They never before made such
projections.
4530
Dr. Sturt. On sugar beets ?
Senator Mondale. On anything. To this date, we did not know what
the labor supply and demand market is going to be in the future, and
I am not sure we know now.
Dr. Sturt. There was a USD A person involved in our task force
study.
Senator Mondale. But the Department has not done this before.
They only recently have concluded that, "We estimate now 12,000 or
14,000 less migrants will be employed in sugar beets this year.'*
That was their biggest, most dangerous, and bravest projection. You
say you do not see such a possibility ?
Dr. Sturt. Let me tell you the Michigan situation. I do not know
about sugar beets outside of Michigan.
Senator Mondale. The figures you used were from the rural man-
power task force ?
Dr. Sturt. That is correct.
Senator Mondale. And they did not project this kind of develop-
ment in sugar beets ?
Dr. Sturt. The rural manpower task force is concerned with the
harvesting of fruits and vegetabes. We did not get into sugar beets.
If you want to know about sugar beets in Michigan, last year we hired
about 4,500 people for thinning and weeding. This year probably it
will be around 2,000.
The reason is no fantastic breakthrough in technology, other than
the fact researchers have come up with what we call a preemergence
spray that is used to inhibit weeds. The important thing is that farmers
are now using more of this technology.
Sugar beets have been harvested mechanically for years. The mi-
grants that are used in sugar beets are used primarily for weeding and
thinning. There is a monogerm seed, which when used should take care
of the thinning problem, for the most part.
We have, of course, various sprays. The most recent is this pre-
emergence spray. One of the main reasons there will be fewer people
used in Michigan in sugar beets is that the Michigan Sugar Co. is no
longer hiring workers, but has placed this responsibility upon the in-
dividual growers and in the process individual growers are going
to hire fewer workers.
I don't know whether this answers your question or not.
Senator Mondale. Yes ; thank you.
Dr. Sturt. I have some material here on seasonal employment peaks
but that is old data. Most important is the fact that the complementar-
ity in employment will be significantly disturbed as new technology is
introduced. Michigan is a good example.
Michigan has some 30 crops involving seasonal farmworkers. Usu-
ally farmworkers come to Michigan in May and June for work in
harvesting strawberries and asparagus. From this work they move
into the cherry and pickle harvests, which is followed by the tomato
and apple harvests. This year most of the tart cherries and about 40
percent of the cucumbers will be harvested mechanically.
4531
All crops considered, during the mid-season period from mid-July
to mid-August there will be an estimated 10,000 fewer jobs. I am not
saying 10,000 fewer workers. I am saying 10,000 fewer jobs. This
creates a special set of problems for the workers, the growers, and for
the communities involved.
We are trying to do something about this in Michigan.
Mechanization also creates new jobs. However, most migrants do not
possess the skills to fill these jobs. A good cherry picker does not
necessarily make a good cherry harvester operator. In fact, it would
appear that most migrant workers do not possess the basic mechaniza-
tion skills to successfully compete for these jobs, and they are being
filled by local workers.
We have seen this happen right along.
THE MIGRANT IN TRANSITION
The migrant farmworker is but one part of the massive migration
of people from rural to urban areas and from farm to nonf arm work.
From 1960-66 the average annual net migration of farm people to
urban areas was about 800,000, many of whom were farmworkers. For
farmworkers the move to the cities has been more "push'- than "pull."
There was no other place to go. Migrant farmworkers have been caught
up in this mass movement.
Agricultural economists have not recognized the "push" dimension
in all of this. There is a great deal of difference between being attracted
to a better job and being forced to leave with no job alternatives.
The hidden hardship in migration is the back-movement, where
people move back and forth between geographical areas in search of
work and an environment in which they feel culturally comfortable.
Dr. Dale Hathaway has done a good deal of research on back-move-
ment ; for every person that successfully moves there are several who
move continuously back and forth and back and forth searching for
this environment which is again culturally comfortable, searching for
a job.
Senator Mondale. In other words, you are referring to migrants
who are unhappy in the stream, and having difficulty making it. They
are looking for something else out of the stream. But, on many oc-
casions they will be disappointed, they will return to the migrant
stream to try again. They go back and forth, in and out of the stream,
is that it ?
Dr. Sttjrt. That is right. But not just migrants. Migrants are part
of this. I am concerned with migrants, of course, but I am concerned
with rural people, and they are all a part of this pattern. They could be
Appalachian people. They could be southern blacks or whites.
Senator Mondale. Of course, all those categories have migrants.
Dr. Sttjrt. In Michigan a study of the Mexican-American migrant
in transition in which the various stages of transition have been ex-
plored indicates that some 1,000-1,500 Mexican Americans drop out of
4532
the stream each year and attempt to settle in Michigan. Jobs, housing,
kinship ties, and the like all play an important part in the settling out
process.
After spending a couple of hours with Dr. Trout, I brought with me
a comprehensive statement prepared by him on Mexican Americans
in transition in the Midwest. You have this before you.
Senator Mondale. We would like to print excerpts from that mate-
rial in our record at this point in your remarks.
(The information referred to follows :)
4533
Comprehensive Statement on Mexican-Americans in
Transition in the Midwest by Professor Grafton
Trout, Professor of Sociology, Michigan State Uni-
versity, East Lansing, Michigan
(1) Some Recommendations for Facilitating Settlement Out of the
Migrant Stream
General comments. Changing residence from one region of the country
to another and shifting from one occupation or industry or even one employer
to another are each in themselves transitions of considerable stress to most
families. Undertaking them concurrently, Mexican-American families moving
into the Midwest, largely from Texas, face double difficulties compounded
further by the families' large size and extremely low level of supporting
resources commonly called upon during such transitions. Often the situation
is further complicated by the family members1 deficiency in English-language
competence. Simultaneously, the family must find adequate housing, the male
head and perhaps the wife and other members of the family must find new Jobs,
the children must enter new schools , food and clothing must be obtained from
new sources, and, last but not least, new sustaining interpersonal and
institutional affiliations must be formed, all in an unfamiliar environment.
Even when the move is between communities of roughly similar size, they
differ in many important respects. When the move is from rural or small
communities or from the encapsulated "barrios" of San Antonio or medium-
sized communities, the lack of experience in an urban-industrial milieu may
be critical.
Since it may safely be predicted that employment opportunity and wage
differentials will continue to exist and perhaps even widen between South
Texas and the Midwest , it may also be predicted that the migration of
Mexican-Americans in the Texas-Midwest channel will persist if not increase.
Add to this the increasingly rapid displacement by mechanization and crop
shifts of seasonal migratory farm laborers depending upon Midwestern employ-
ment for a part of the year to maintain the delicately articulated migratory
cycle and even greater pressure for resettlement may be foreseen. Therefore,
4534
the recently fashionable concept of "guided migration" seems most pertinent
to the problems of the population concerned here. What is clearly necessary
is to rationalize and cushion the stresses of the resettlement process both
for the benefit of the migrating family and for maximizing of manpower
resources. With regard to the latter benefit, we hasten to point out that
the Mexican-American worker should be considered as much a manpower resource
in the Midwest as much as or, perhaps more than, a manpower problem. We will
discuss below in detail some of the ways in which we believe the unique work
experience, preferences and commitments of many ex-migratory farm workers
provide an important resource for filling new manpower requirements , par-
ticularly those associated with the mechanization of agriculture. Let us
look first at some of the aspects of migration which appear to be amenable
to programs of action.
Guided migration. Who should migrate, when, where and how? Certainly
our data do not permit definitive answers to these questions , but some
reasonable tentative conclusions can be reached. Further research is dis-
cussed below regarding more adequate answers to these questions. It would
seek to identify the characteristics of the successful migrants as con-
trasted with those who try to settle and fail and those who desire to settle
but cannot do so. Pending more specific findings, however, the following
suggestions may be made:
l) The most successful migrants are likely to be those who are
relatively young, certainly under Uo, with smaller than
average families, higher than average education, relatives
or friends in the areas of resettlement, and occupational
skills and preferences conforming to the demands of the
local labor market in the area of resettlement.
Of course, theBe are also characteristics which will differentially account
for the relative success of such families even among those staying in Texas.
Nevertheless, guided migration programs ought to encourage those to migrate
who have the highest probability of benefiting from the move and who have
the greatest resources for accomplishing it successfully. It is worth
emphasizing here that Mexican-Americans tend to move in the migratory stream
as family units and tend likewise to resettle as such. Two-thirds of the
4535
f emily heads interviewed settled in family units ; 50 percent as head of a
nuclear family, 17 percent in a two or three generational family. The Ling-
Temco-Vought Job training and guided resettlement experiment in Texas
appears likely to confirm the importance of the move of complete family units
in the resettlement process. The size of the family is important not only
in terms of the strain placed upon financial and other resources but at least
as importantly in respect to the opportunity for obtaining housing. We
have been forced to conclude that the lack of low income housing of suf-
ficient capacity is the primary impediment at the present time to resettle-
ment. The problem in finding housing is not so much discrimination against
Mexican-Americans because of ethnicity, although it exists, but the more
general discrimination against large families . Many cases came to our
attention during this research in which good jobs had been lined up but lack
of adequate, or even inadequate, housing, precluded the resettlement of the
family. Clearly, no amount of attention devoted to the facilitation of job
training and placement in migration will be of benefit until some improvement
in the availability of housing is accomplished. This leads to the question
of the relative desirability of destination communities in terms of the
availability of Jobs, housing, and other amenities. To what places should
migration be directed? There has been much emphasis upon the misallocation
of much south to north migration because of the disproportionate concentra-
tion in already overcrowded metropolitan areas. It has been suggested that
because of the high visibility and the gravity pull of large minority
subcommunities in a few major cities, middle-sized and smaller communities
have failed to absorb the proportion of migrants warranted often by their
employment needs. Among Mexican-Americans, we believe this to be somewhat
4536
less the case than among Negroes for two reasons primarily. First, there is
somewhat less discrimination against Mexican-Americans in the Midwest,
especially when the proportionate number is small, and secondly, Mexican-
American migratory farm workers have been located prior to settlement in
rural and less densely populated areas near which they have tended to settle,
at least, initially and often remain even while commuting to a larger city
where more attractive employment may be available. Furthermore, we received
the distinct impression during this research that many Mexican-American
families prefer small-town living both because it is consistent with their
past experience in the places of origin and because they find urban living
disruptive of the values and patterns of family life that they cherish,
particularly in respect to child rearing. On the other hand, we found as
well a desire to be near other Mexican-American families and ethnic
opportunities which made isolated farm or even village settlement undesirable.
Nevertheless , with regard to the destination settlements of Mexican-American
families , we would recommend that
2) given adequate employment opportunities for adult family members,
migration should be encouraged and facilitated to smaller or
middle-sized communities as an alternative to resettlement in
major metropolitan areas.
Access to other Mexican-American families and facilities may be important
for many families but we have noted a high degree of mobility in driving to
wherever such may be available if absent in the local community. This should
not be surprising among a population, a majority of whose members may have
participated in the most mobile of all occupations available, namely,
migratory farm work.
How should migration be facilitated? This question is particularly
appropriate in the case such as this whether geographical mobility is almost
4537
necessarily linked with occupational and socio-economic mobility. In order
to resettle successfully, the migrant must, in most instances, shift to a
new occupation requiring skills and habits different from his present one.
One kind of mobility cannot be facilitated without parallel enhancement of
the other. If retraining is to be involved, then the question arises as to
whether it should be accomplished among intended migrants in the place of
origin or among actual migrants at the place of destination. We suggest
the following for consideration, especially in light of further research:
3) preparation for migration, especially when trainine ie necessary,
should be accomplished in the place of origin where feasible as
well as, or in addition to, facilitation of settlement in the
place of destination.
We believe that areas of out-migration are sufficiently apparent in the case
of Mexican-Americans as to make preparation for migration at the probable
place of origin economically feasible and socially desirable. Costs would
be lower due to level of living differences. Bilingual Mexican-American
personnel for staffing would be more readily available. And, finally,
placement could be more rational if cooperation between employment services
of the sending and receiving states or communities could be developed. There
are, of course, serious obstacles to such training in the place of origin.
First, it would require cooperation of local authorities in some communities
in which the Mexican-American migratory labor force is a valued resource for
seasonal employment complementing the northern migratory season. In harsher
terms, it may be described as a captive labor force caught in a cycle of
marginal employment, no part of that cycle being capable or willing to pay
more than marginal wages. In such communities, particularly smaller rural-
based ones , any program explicitly aimed at facilitating out-migration will
encounter formidable obstacles. In larger cities such as Brownsville, Laredo,
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 2
4538
Corpus Cristi or San Antonio such a program might meet less resistance and
even elicit cooperation if it could be shown to relieve local problems
resulting from underemployment or unemployment. Certainly the present cooper-
ation between the state employment security offices of Michigan and Texas
with regard to the scheduling of migrant agricultural labor each season sug-
gests that, given more aggresive Job search activity on the receiving end of
the channel, migration might be successfully guided to the places having the
greatest need and, if possible, the greatest capacity to absorb new workers
and their families. If direct recruitment of Mexican-American workers for
the sugar beet and metal industries of Michigan was successful before and
during World War II, why could not similar efforts be made by state employ-
ment offices? This, combined with basic education or up-grading and job
training would greatly enhance the migrant families' chances of a successful
and rapid adjustment in their new environments.
Finally, guided migration assumes some facilitation of resettlement
on the receiving end of the channel. In this regard, we strongly suggest that
programs be developed particularly fitted to the needs of the Mexican-
American migrant:
U) use should be made both in preparation for migration and in
facilitating settlement of the ethnic interpersonal and
institutional bonds of the families involved.
The experience of relocation of the Cuban refugees from Florida provides an
example of guided resettlement which is worth considerable study in prepara-
tion of such a program for Mexican- American South Texas residents. One of
the most striking features of this effort has been the central role of
religious organizations. The large-scale organization with which Mexican-
Americans seem to deal most effectively in Michigan is the Catholic Church.
4539
This is explainable in that most of them are Catholics and have related to
the church elsewhere throughout their lifetimes. There are several Catholic
priests and lay administrators who have been interested and active in working
for the benefit of Mexican-Americans and migrant farm workers in Michigan
and some of these persons have worked very effectively with Mexican-Americans
in the communities. Some constructive predominantly Mexican-American
institutions are church related, such as credit unions in at least two cities,
community centers, and other community-level organizations.
Mexican-Americans do not have such satisfactory relationships with
many other Anglo-dominated institutions, such as school systems. We find
very low rates of Mexican-Americans on welfare, so that is not an agency
system which is highly used by them. We find them not using other agencies
which are available to them, such as the state employment service. We find
them in complicated and sometimes conflicted relationships with some com-
munity action programs.
On the positive side, it would seem that, building strength upon
strength, the Catholic church and its ancillary agencies should be brought
into programs for Mexican-Americans in a major way. This would seem to be a
strategy of directing services or communications to the Mexican-Americans
through a channel which has proven to be acceptable to them. The major
drawback in this idea is that the Church is an Anglo-dominated institution
and might be resented by Mexican-Americans as paternalistic. Nonetheless,
many within the Church bureaucracy are aware of this problem and would be
likely to put as much control and responsibility in the hands of members of
the community as possible.
4540
As far as the other agencies with which Mexican-Americans have less
satisfactory relationships are concerned, the problem is one of agencies'
managing to adapt themselves to better serve Mexican-Americans in ways that
would be acceptable to this client population. One of the most rapid and
effective ways of doing this is the recruitment and training of Mexican-
Americans as sub-professionals to mediate between the agency professionals
and their Mexican-American clients. It goes without saying that the
recruitment of full professionals of Mexican-American background is urgent
but this is a longer term solution. The need is immediate and, we believe
that the competence and commitment is present among Mexican-American
residents, many of whom are currently less effectively employed in less
satisfying work than that which would be involved in sub-professional
occupations.
Needs of settlers-in. While resettlement in Michigan is sometimes
carefully planned with arrangements for housing and sometimes Jobs being
made in advance through relatives and friends already resident in the com-
munity of destination, more often it is relatively spontaneous and unplanned.
This is particularly true of dropouts from the migratory farm labor stream.
Often information regarding the possibility of a job may be obtained from
someone else while in the field or perhaps the farmer consents to the
family's staying on in his housing rent-free or provides a month or so
extra work beyond the season for a few families. All too frequently, the
family may have bad luck in getting enough work because of weather or other
vicissitudes affecting migratory farm work and consequently have too little
earnings to permit returning to Texas where it typically will have been in
debt prior to leaving for the work in the stream. Thus it is these
4541
"spontaneous" and often "unintentional" dropouts who are most in need of aid
in getting settled. They are often without friends or relatives in the com-
munities near their last field work and therefore must rely upon the farmer
who employed them, local agencies, or agencies or programs specifically
directed at migrant problems .
In Michigan, Michigan Migrant Opportunities, Inc., sponsored Jointly
by the Michigan Catholic Conference and the Michigan Council of Churches
and recipient of a series of grants under the Economic Opportunity Act of
196U began work with migrants in the camps in the summer of 1965. Programs
were directed at problems in the camps such as education, day care for
children, health and legal aid. The agency was specifically limited to
assistance of migrants in the stream but its personnel observed the problems
of settling out and, in 1968, under a new grant from the Migrant Division
of O.E.O., it was reorganized as United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc. and
began to work with settlers out of the stream on a year-round basis.
Religious bodies also have had workers in the camps who have attempted in
so far as possille to aid in the settling out process. In the summer of
1969, a State Committee on Inter-Agency Cooperation for Migrants is sponsoring
two centers to maximize agency services for migrants settling out. Thus
progress is being made in the direction of developing programs to facilitate
successful settling out. The experience of these agencies and programs
provides an invaluable resource for future program planning in this area.
Similar activities are underway in other Midwestern states but it is our
impression that those of Michigan are somewhat advanced over others. We
recommend strongly that
5) any programs for guided migration and resettlement of
migratory farm workers in the Midwest make use of the
valuable experience accumulated by previous smaller-
scale efforts in assistance to migrants settling out of
the stream.
4542
In addition, we would like to emphasize the increasing availability as a
result of experience in these programs of highly dedicated and committed
Mexican-American personnel who have proved to be highly effective in the
human relations aspects of assisting migrant families . In our view such
personnel are essential to any program seeking to work with Mexican-American
migrants since these families are used to working with other people of
similar culture and background not with impersonal bureaucracies. Not only
is bilingualism necessary for such personnel, but also the experience of
having been a migrant and having settled out successfully is quite helpful.
The increasing number of Mexican-American ex-migratory workers in the Mid-
west who have successfully upgraded their education and have accumulated
valuable experience in community organization and family assistance, often
informally through their unpaid private efforts , constitute an indispensable
human resource for future programs of migrant settlement facilitation.
New opportunities in industrializing agriculture. With increasing
mechanization in this region and the consequent diminishing size of the
projected seasonal agricultural labor force, we recommend:
6) the development of programs by which migrant field workers
can learn the necessary mechanical skills to continue in
agricultural work in new positions.
This has been attempted on a small scale in Michigan and merits further
testing. Essentially, what it involves, in terms of Job training, is
teaching the migrants to operate or service farm machinery.
This is an attractive strategy because there is a need in agriculture
in this region for year-round farm workers with mechanical skills and
because some of the Mexican-Americans like agricultural work and rural
living and would not be averse to continuing in it at a higher wage level
4543
vith better living conditions. One misconception commonly held concerning
Mexican-American migrant farm workers is that they have a low level of
mechanical aptitude. Our survey data indicate that this is not the case:
many of the respondents indicated that they have mechanical skills which they
do not use in their current Jobs. The presence of the majority of Michigan
Mexican-Americans in factory work indicates that they are capable of employ-
ment involving machinery.
In addition to the training of ex-migrant workers to perform specific
mechanical tasks, many would also need some social services to assist them
in operating in a new environment, particularly in smaller rural communities.
In terms of the ordinary way in which migrants enter and become
acculturated in new communities, this attempt to open mechanical farm work
to Mexican-Americans has at least one major drawback. That is, living on
dispersed farms as "hired hands" the individual migrant families would be
deprived of the social support and other functions that derive from living
within an ethnic subcommunity or within a network of others of their back-
ground. However, we might find the dispersed farm families making their own
substitute arrangements for the functions of the barrio. While we believe
that programs working with Mexican-American ex-migratory workers must be
solicitous of their needs and particular cultural background, we do not wish
to give the impression that they are so completely integrated into a Mexican-
American subculture as to be unwilling or unable to "survive" outside an
urban Mexican-American subcommunity. We have been impressed by their
adaptability and by the strength derived from the coherence of the family
unit in rural and small town settings. Therefore, we do not anticipate that
new settlers especially will be unresponsive to new opportunities for agri-
cultural employment at higher levels of skill and remuneration.
4544
One thing which should be kept in mind, however, regarding rural
settlement and agricultural employment is the need or desirability of pro-
viding employment opportunities for wives and other family members. We have
noted that one-third of the wives of our male respondents are presently
employed. Rural opportunities for female employment may be fewer than in
urban areas, although the opportunity of part-time farming activity in a
rural setting might provide 6ome unpaid agricultural employment for wives
and other family members. In any case, it is always necessary to consider
the family as a whole in any program of retraining and guided settlement.
Complementary part-time employment in seasonal farm labor. While there
is growing recognition that the migratory way of life is socially undesir-
able and economically marginal, the need for unevenly distributed amounts of
labor in certain crops will remain. Either such labor must be recruited
locally or within commuting distance of the farms or farmers must switch to
other crops as the supply of migratory labor decreases as it must as the
cycle of work is broken by selective mechanization. In discussing the employ-
ment transition from migratory farm labor to urban industrial labor, we
pointed out that among a significant number of families, part-time seasonal
farm labor persists as an income supplement some years after settlement.
This may be a matter of wives and elder children working during peak harvest
periods while the husband continues his industrial job or of the whole family
returning to farm work during vacations , change-over lay-offs in motor
vehicle plants or, in some cases, even on weekends. This resource of intra-
state seasonal farm labor provides an increasingly important supplement to
the seasonal labor force which will continue to be required at peak periods
or regularly during certain weeks in ciops not now or foreseeably subject to
4545
mechanization. We recommend that
7) some experiments should be undertaken in systematically
linking ex-migratory farm workers and members of their
families desiring part-time farm employment to
opportunities for such employment.
While families settling out near areas in which they last worked in agri-
culture will have contacts with farmers nearby for whom they worked, those
families settling in more distant urban areas may have little awareness of
part-time agricultural employment nearby or of other opportunities further
away. Therefore, some of the recruiting and placement efforts now focused
on inter-state migrants by employment offices might be redirected toward
the placement of intra-state farm laborers.
Income maintenance during resettlement. A final recommendation
regarding problems of resettling migrants, particularly dropouts from the
migrant stream, concerns the problem of a decline of income or insufficiency
of income to meet the increased needs resulting from resettlement. A well-
known characteristic of migrant families is that of their working together
both in the stream and in communities of origin. The wife and older children
contribute to the total family income in the field and may do so in agri-
cultural employment back home or perhaps the wife may work in food processing
for several months if not in the field. The multiple-earner character of
the Mexican-American family tends to breakdown during resettlement and
despite the often much higher individual earnings of the male head, the total
family income may decline particularly because of the wife's inability to
find work or the husband's unwillingness to have her work in an urban-
industrial environment. At the same time, the needs of the family are
greatly increased. Warmer clothes are needed to withstand the winter
weather. Living costs in general are likely to be much higher. And finally,
4546
debts accumulated during vinter months of sporadic employment must be paid.
Therefore, the most important single form of assistance that could be pro-
vided the family settling out would be an income supplement. We recommend
that
8) low-interest "settlement" loans and/or relocation payments
to supplement Income during the first year or so of
settlement be provided to needy dropouts from the migrant
stream.
We believe this would be a very worthwhile investment in most cases and
would greatly accelerate the process of adjustment to the new environment.
It would allow older children to remain in school by providing them with
needed clothes and relieving them from the necessity to work and would
likewise enable the wife to remain in the home with younger children during
this critical period. It would avoid the frequently encountered paradox
of the lowering of the level of living of the family as the husband triples
his wages in a new job.
4547
Dr. Stttrt. I will simply take a few minutes and pull out some of
Dr. Trout's recommendations relative to migrants in transition.
He points out the most successful migrants, the ones who made the
transition successfully, are the ones under 40 with smaller than average
families. This I stress because the large family becomes very, very much
of an encumbrance in terms of making the transition — finding housing
and finding resources to make the transition.
Among other recommendations he stresses the need for providing
adequate employment opportunities for adult family members.
"Migration should be encouraged and facilitated through small- or
middle-sized communities as an alternative to resettlement in major
metropolitan areas," he states.
He feels that the ones who have settled in Albion, and Grand Kapids,
Ithaca, Lansing, and places like this in Michigan have had a more
successful experience than those that have gone to larger cities.
Senator Mondale. Of the thousand or 1,500 Mexican-Americans
seeking to settle in Michigan, do you have any idea how many actually
make a successful adjustment, and stay permanently out of the migra-
tion stream ?
Dr. Stttrt. These would be permanent.
"Preparation for migration, especially where training is necessary,
should be accomplished in place of origin where feasible * * *." He'
feels and I agree with him that we have not done enough to train
migrants where they are.
In Michigan about two-thirds of the migrants that come into the
State come out of the valley, the Kio Grande Valley, and are Mexican
American. He feels that a great deal more needs to be done relative
to working with the people in the valley where they are, particularly
insofar as the development of transferable skills.
This is somewhat against the grain of what seems to be happening,
of what many people seem to be proposing relative to training pro-
grams, for example, training where the jobs are.
But I think we need both ; and training in transferable skills, where
the people are, appears to make sense. If a training program could
be conducted in the Valley, comparable to what we might offer in
Michigan, the training could be accomplished and the people would be
much more comfortable in the process.
Senator Mondale. I think unless something is done about the bor-
der problem, there is no point in talking about training.
Dr. Stttrt. You mean the green card problem, and the wetbacks?
Senator Mondale. And the fact that there are no effective restric-
tions on Mexicans coming across the border although the Department
claims there are. Working conditions are abominable, and Mexican
foreign commuters are often used to break strikes. There is either a
wholesale violation of social and economic legislation, or it does not
extend to them. Their whole pattern of life and work is as bad today
as it was 30 years ago, and there is little going on by way of economic
development,
Migrants that I have talked to say that : "If you want a young man
to take training, you better have a job in mind for him, and be able to
4548
tell him about it, or he will not have the incentive to take training."
Along the Rio Grande Valley in south Texas, there is little or no
training on jobs. So I think that to talk of training down there is nice,
but the surplus labor pressure is so enormous that it is a singular
source of the migrant stream. It is a major hemorrhage.
I can't convince any of the Federal departments or agencies to get
interested in it. We keep talking about token programs, while human
beings continue to suffer.
Dr. Sturt. I don't agree with you at all in terms of training pro-
grams in the Valley. I feel youngsters go to school everyday and do not
expect to have a job waiting at the end of the line necessarily. There
are all kinds of things that can be done in the Valley. There are, of
course, many problems in Texas.
Senator Mondale. I agree with that.
Dr. Sturt. There is little sense in providing basic education pro-
grams, and these kinds of things in Michigan, as we are currently
doing. Our programs are only a drop in the bucket. There needs to be
education programs in the valley on a massive scale.
Senator Mondale. But my basic complaint is that we have a massive
poverty population coining into the country virtually every day from
Mexico. We thought we stopped it when we eliminated the bracero
program, but now other methods for commuting across the border
perpetuates the problem so it is just as bad as it was 15 years ago.
We need a rational policy to stop that hemorrhaging along the bor-
der, and to implement a policy encouraging economic bargaining
power for the individual Mexican- American.
I really despair over how little sensitivity I think the appropriate
agencies are snowing toward this program. We saw an impressive re-
action to marijuana in the recent Operation Intercept. I understand
that there are efforts in Maine affecting Canadians coming in to work
in Maine. But along the Texas border and along the California border,
you have to be an idiot not to know how to get across that border to
work in the United States.
Dr. Sturt. This I know very little about. I assume you invited im-
migration representatives here to testify.
Senator Mondale. Yes, but that did not help any.
Dr. Sturt. It is true there we have a large surplus of farm workers
and that is the basic economic problem. What you are saying is that
the surplus is being expanded by people flowing across the river into
the farm labor stream.
Granted, something has to be done on that, and that is something
I know very little about. I do know that there are some real advan-
tages to working with people and trying to train them in their own
locals where they are culturally comfortable.
We can get money in Michigan to do training, but I feel the same
money can be spent far more effectively in the Valley in the winter
at times when they are not as busy.
Dr. Trout feels that we should attempt to guide migration to those
areas where there are already people with whom the migrants can
identify.
4549
For a number of years we have been proposing the development of
master migration plans. Where are people going to be needed and how
do we develop the kinds of mechanisms to get them there ?
I have not been able to sell the master migration plan idea to the
Department of Labor.
Senator Mondale. I get the impression that there is none of that
kind of strategic thinking going on in the Department of Agriculture
or Labor. Once the migrant is in the stream, he is on his own. He might
get a little help from some friends. He might get some help from
occasional manpower offices, but in terms of the best use of his time,
best return for his efforts, and the best place for him to be, he is lucky
if he gets any help.
Dr. Sturt. This is not completely true. The Farm Labor Service
has an annual worker plan which they use.
Senator Mondale. I think they testified yesterday that once mi-
grants are in the stream, they don't follow a worker as much. And not
all workers are using the plan, and many farmers don't participate.
Dr. Sturt. No, they have an annual worker plan in which a crew
or group will start out in the Valley, for example, and they know the
workers will be in Arkansas for work there, in Michigan for work in
asparagus, etc. The work plan is all scheduled ahead of time.
It is called the "annual worker plan." It has many weaknesses in it,
but it is a good idea and it is used. Along the way the workers need
all kinds of services and they do not get access to many of these needed
services. I will get into that in a minute.
I would like to return to my statement, and comment on the impact
of technology on people.
In terms of the Department of Agriculture it would appear that 95
percent of their research budget goes into technological research.
There is an imbalance between the emphasis upon the physical sci-
ences and technological research and the human fallout resulting
from this research. We agriculturists have been great in creating the
problems but not very adept in solving them.
Senator Mondale. That was developed at yesterday's hearing. They
spent $125 million for technology and other kinds of efforts that the
Department of Agriculture institutes that has the effect of reducing
the need for manpower. And that is a drop in the bucket. On the other
side, in terms of money for trying to deal with the human problems,
trying to meet the oversupply of labor, trying to discourage migrancy,
trying to get a better balance between jobs and workers, there seems to
be little known or done.
Dr. Sturt. Precisely. I think we have an example of a really mas-
sive thrust to displace people, and using Federal funds to do it.
Senator Mondale. Did you think that $125 million figure is low ?
Dr. Sturt. It is way low, I believe.
Senator Mondale. What would you estimate ?
Dr. Sturt. Probably twice as much.
Senator Mondale. For the record, could you give us your calcula-
tions in this field, how much you think goes into this area ?
4550
Dr. Sturt. It depends on how it is couched. I am simply saying
probably 95 percent of all the research moneys in the US DA and its
land-grant affiliates is technologically oriented and, therefore, ori-
ented toward the displacement of people.
Senator Mondale. I think it is significant that yours is the only
rural manpower center at a land-grant college in the country, is that
right?
Dr. Sturt. It is very significant, primarily because we are a prod-
uct of the Michigan State Legislature.
Senator Mondale. But it is the only one of its kind in the country,
yet every land-grant college in the country has agriculture techno-
logical schools.
Dr. Sttjrt. This is because there has been this concern with tech-
nology, primarily to provide cheap food. Society is saying anything
goes as long as you provide cheap food ; we will give you unlimited
funds as long as you provide cheap food. Also, it is generally held that
whatever is good for the individual farm operator is good for rural
people. This is not always true. It may be good for the individual farm
operator and not be good for all rural people.
I won't continue on with Dr. Trout's material. He is interested in
income supplements, for example, so people will be able to make the
transition. Also, he is interested in resettlement assistance. He is in-
terested in guiding migration, as I am, and we disagree only on one
point.
I contend that most of the migrants do not possess the basic aptitude
for acquiring mechanization skills. He thinks they can be expected to
move into jobs in mechanized agriculture and I do not think this can
be accomplished without massive training programs, because most of
the migrants are not oriented in this direction. They are oriented to-
ward picking and harvesting, but not toward the operation of
machinery.
I have three or four points on immediate needs. One of the immediate
needs, of course, has to do with housing.
Adequate housing is needed both for migrant farmworkers em-
ployed in agriculture and those who wish to move into nonfarm jobs.
Migrant housing for those employed in agriculture has improved, and
growers will continue to improve housing as licensing and other forms
of encouragement take effect.
In Michigan, we have some very bad housing and we also have
some very good housing ; it is improving.
Some sort of cost-sharing arrangement whereby the public enters
into a partnership with the individual grower to improve housing
should be encouraged. The agricultural labor commission, which is a
statutory commission in the State of Michigan and which I chair,
came up with a proposal last August for a State appropriation of over
$1 million for this kind of program.
Although for a much smaller amount, there is a provision in the
Governor's budget for cost -sharing and it is a significant breakthrough.
Society has the responsibility to join hands with the grower and help
him underwrite the cost of this housing.
4551
Senator Mondale. What about the possibility of mobile homes, or
campers, or similar vehicular homes for subsidizing migrants, rather
than subsidizing a particular fixed housing location ?
It seems to me that we have several problems here. As you point
out, many farmers have limited periods during which they need mi-
grants, say 2 or 3 weeks, and they are very reluctant to spend a lot of
money on housing.
Dr. Sturt. Particulary if those farmers are also living in poverty.
Senator Mondale. The other problem is that many farmers have
crops where they think mechanization will take over, so they ask why
they should build housing, and provide decent sanitation, and all the
rest when a year or 2 or 3 from now they may not need any of it.
Yet, from what you have said, and what was testified to yesterday,
there will continue to be a need for migrants. And that need will in-
volve a much more sophisticated use of migrants, much more careful
planning, far better services, and much better mobility. Why wouldn't
it make sense to assist the migrant in finding quality housing that he
can take with him ?
Dr. Sturt. I have no objections to this. It has been discussed along
the way. I would say it is a possibility. You have to be sure of all the
other supporting services which have to go along with it. The migrant
has to know how to take care of the housing and how to use it properly.
It certainly is worthy of consideration.
It would also be expensive, I might add, when you think of giving a
mobile home to each family.
The cost-sharing notion is highly significant, I feel, and those on
the Agricultural Labor Commission in the State of Michigan feel the
same way.
It is, essentially, saying to society, "If you feel so strongly about this,
put your money where your mouth is and help us do the job."
I am speaking primarily for Michigan, where we do not have a lot
of large operators in the California or Florida sense. Also, we are talk-
ing about some farm operators in Michigan, who, as I have said, are
well qualified for poverty assistance along with many hired workers.
There are Federal funds available for improving farm worker hous-
ing, but we have been unsuccessful in developing a mechanism for
using it. You would think that HUD and the Farmers Home Admin-
istration would provide more assistance along these lines. We have not
been able to get a Federal project moving. We organized and worked
with groups of growers on several occasions where we thought we were
going to get cooperative housing units set up, but we were unsuccessful.
It never comes off for a variety of reasons and we do not have any
of this publicly supported housing in Michigan.
Let us move to the second recommendation in the statement. It has to
do with improved health, education, and welfare services for migrant
workers and their families. I am particularly concerned with the food
stamp program.
I don't know a great deal about this except that I know there have
been fantastic blockages for migrants who attempt to get access to
food and food stamps. The food programs are not designed to serve
4552
people on the move, in the migrant worker sense. There should be
self -certification.
Senator Mondale. Have you made an analysis as to how many coun-
ties in which migrants are used extensively in Michigan are counties
which even have a food stamp program ?
Dr. Sturt. I believe they all have them.
Senator Mondale. Then the second question is how many of those
that have them have simply token programs ?
Dr. Sturt. No. We have active food programs and food stamp pro- »
grams in Michigan, but the accessibility to these is through that county
person who is there who becomes all-powerful when you apply for
stamps. I have suggested to the Department of Agriculture that inas-
much as the average income of the migrant from farm and nonfarm
work is something like $1,400 or $1,500 a year, why not automatically
qualify all people that are in the interstate farm labor work force for
food stamps ?
With such a program there would be a few that would be getting
stamps that should not ; but many deserving thousands would receive
assistance which is now being denied them. It seems to me there has
to be some sort of waiver system, where the usual rules are not applied,
because, like so many other things in our society, the rules are not
designed to accommodate these people on the move.
Senator Mondale. If you think it is bad when migrants are on the
move, you should go down to southern Texas and Florida and see how
they are treated when they are stationary. We found in southern
Florida that the counties that had the highest migrant population
had no food stamp program, or if they had programs at all, they were
token programs.
The largest migrant county had county-elected officials who said
migrants were Federal people, and were not the responsibility of local
government. They thought it would be illegal to provide food stamps,
so you have an awful bias, an awful form of discrimination that affects
food programs in the South.
Dr. Sturt. I am sure this is true. But in Michigan we have a fairly
progressive program, I think. On the other hand, insofar as the
migrants are concerned, some do get service, but some do not.
What would be wrong with a food program where anyone involved
in interstate farm work would automatically qualify? Granted some
would get them that should not, but only a very few, because there are
only a few that would go above the stipulated income level for
qualifying.
I would like to talk some more about equity of access. If there is
any one thing we have tried to inject into all of our presentations in
the last year, it has been this term. It pertains to access to all public
services.
We would contend that the rural poor generally do not have equity
of access to services. There is a double discrimination involved. Urban
areas are attracting more Federal funds these days than are the rural
areas.
There is a disproportionate share of moneys going into urban areas
as opposed to rural areas, which are the source of urban problems in
4553
the first place. Second, within the rural community there is this lack
of equity of access, so someone living in north Michigan is a victim of
double discrimination in terms of equity of access to services.
Another immediate need for migrant workers has to do with em-
ployment services; we feel that migrants need more job information.
They need assistance in job scheduling.
Many migrants are looking for nonfarm work and as they search
for this nonfarm work, they need special employment assistance, not
only in job information, but the whole bundle of services that will
assist them in making the transition to a dramatically different type
of work in an oftentimes hostile environment.
Not only migrants, but rural people, need a whole array of employ-
ment services. I am concerned that there appears to be a move under-
way to have one set of employment services emanating from the De-
partment of Labor offices, as opposed to something that is identifiably
rural and that is specially tailored to meet the needs of rural people.
Working with migrants is a different ball game from working with
urban people, and the Department of Labor has to recognize this.
Senator Mondale. But aren't there also special problems with the
interstate migrant that are unique from rural people generally ?
Dr. Stukt. Yes, but I think you are missing the boat if you do not
include migrant and rural problems together, because the migrant is a
part of the total rural picture.
Senator Mondale. I think he is one of the key contributors to rural
poverty because he comes along at peak employment need time and
takes pressure off the normal operation of a free enterprise supply and
demand labor market.
Dr. Sturt. We have a lot of hired farmworkers in Michigan, for
example. We have about 15,000. All of them would not be classified
as rural poor, but a number would be. They are not migrants in any
sense.
We have people that have dropped out of the stream. We have a lot
of people that are simply there. Our estimates are that approximately
one-half million people m rural Michigan, for example, are poor and
living in poverty. And we have encouraged the Governor to appoint
a rural affairs council. Hopefully we will get an office of rural affairs.
Rural poverty has been pushed into the background. The migrant
problems are a part of it, and a significant part of it.
Senator Mondale. I guess what I am apprehensive about in that
analysis is I agree with the rural poverty point, but I am also of the
opinion that there are many factors that are different between the
migrant, and the local impoverished rural worker who does not
migrate. There are, in fact, many special problems of the interstate
migrant that require a special focus, and many times special admin-
istrative apparatus is needed if he is going to have any help at all.
For example, the rural impoverished problems in Michigan are not
the same as the constantly mobile farmworker looking for work.
Many of the migrants that come to Michigan come there because they
are forced out of Texas. At least the rural poor in Michigan live in
some kind of community, and he may even vote. They may have a little
political power. Kids from a permanent resident, rural poor family
36-513 O — 71 — pt. 7B 3
4554
may go to a school and will at least be accepted as residents of that
community. In fact, they live in a community long enough where he
might have a chance at welfare, and some of the other services also.
Dr. Sturt. It is a little better situation.
Senator Moxdale. The migrant has nothing. He has no vote and no
political power. He is just moving along. And he is often hated. He is
a foreigner. He accepts all the risks, and all of the costs of finding the
next job.
Dr. Sturt. There is fantastic community discrimination relative
to the migrant, Many people point their fingers at the individual
growers and accuse them of discriminating against migrant workers.
While there are some cases of grower discrimination, there are many
situations where the grower turns out to be the best friend of the
migrant worker.
We have encountered very serious community discrimination. This
is one of the reasons why it is almost impossible to establish coopera-
tive housing developments for migrant workers. The community dis-
criminates and objects to housing developments being established.
These are the same people, mind you, that through the church or-
ganizations and other avenues will be blasting the grower. They will
refuse to have a migrant housing operation in their community.
Let us move to long-run needs. I feel that we should have interde-
partmental technology councils that weigh the anticipated impact of
public investments in technological research. The imbalance toward
physical science research should be redressed in order to encourage
more social science research. A product orientation should give way to
a people orientation, as the human consequences of technology are put
in proper perspective.
What I am saying here is I think there should be some kind of intra -
departmental technology council that influences the allocation of
moneys that go into research, particularly relative to agricultural
research.
We recommend this to foreign governments. I conduct international
manpower seminars here in Washington and other places, and a stand-
ard recommendation is to encourage planners to select those technolo-
gies that best fit their economies.
For example, if your people-to-land ratio is high, you usually do not
encourage the labor-displacing types of technology.
I think the only way to come to grips with this problem is to find
some mechanism for making those who promote technological research
and education, face up to the human consequences of it.
Let us look at a second long-run need. A system of social and eco-
nomic rewards based upon human resources rather than property
resources should be encouraged. Along these lines, wage supports would
be more appropriate than price supports.
I assume somebody else suggested this idea.
Senator Mondale. Would you include minimum wage increases
under that ?
Dr. Sturt. In a sense, but using a system of wage subsidies, that are
paid by the consumer.
4555
All of your USDA price support programs are geared to a property
base rather than a human resource base. This, again, is predicated
upon the belief that what is good for the individual operator is good
for all people in agriculture. This is not true, because all people do
not own property.
For example, the tobacco program. I am familiar with that. The
price support program for tobacco and the increased prices are essen-
tially capitalized in the price of the land. It does not accrue to the
individuals doing the work. It accrues to the individuals that own the
tobacco land.
Senator Mondale. Would that great subsidy approach encourage
labor intensive efforts and discourage mechanization? Would that be
the tendency ?
Dr. Sturt. Sure. Let me give you an example of what I am talking
about. We have a proposal called the farmworker equity proposal.
It goes like this :
If you took 1 percent of the total food bill — it could be a tax at retail
level, it could be a food handling tax — you would get about a billion
dollars. This billion dollars could go a long way toward subsidizing
wages for the hired farmworkers, improving housing and so forth.
It would also take away some of the pressure for increased mechani-
zation. It could be administered by ASC offices. You have the mecha-
nism already there for administration. It would be putting the em-
phasis upon the human inputs rather than the property inputs in
agriculture.
It would probably improve the quality of the products because
oftentimes mechanization does not provide you with as high quality
products as does hand harvesting.
It should reduce the push to the cities. Originally, perhaps this was
the intent of our price support and other farm legislation, to improve
the quality of rural living and help rural people. What, in fact, has
happened is that these programs have helped those people who own
property ; this does not mean the same thing as helping rural people.
Senator Mondale. Would you favor extension of the National
Labor Relations Act to the farmworker ?
Dr. Sturt. Would I favor extension of the National Labor
Relations Act?
Senator Mondale. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sturt. It would depend upon the form that it takes. I am going
to cover this in a minute in my report. I think unionization coverage
has to be geared to agriculture. Probably the Secretary of Labor's
proposal which he made in a speech in Ohio would be acceptable. I
don't see anything wrong with it.
Senator Mondale. The Secretary of Labor would substitute
compulsory arbitration. Would you favor that approach?
Dr. Sturt. Compulsory arbitration is probably the only answer.
The basic problem we have in agriculture stems from simply including
agriculture in social legislation. We must design appropriate
mechanisms that fit this special situation.
In Michigan, for example, we have workmen's compensation for
some agricultural workers. It looks like we are going to move toward
4556
workmen's compensation for all agricultural workers in Michigan. I
am convinced that agriculture is different.
This does not mean they have to be exempted. In the process we
have to recognize that the farmwork environment is a different work
environment and we have to tailor these programs and tailor legisla-
tion to arrive at a comparable end, but perhaps with a different
means.
I don't know whether I am communicating with you or not. I am
saying agricultural workers deserve equal treatment, obviously. And
we need these protections, but we also have to be realistic enough to
know that we have to devise a mechanism that works and fits the
situation.
I am not a union person and I know very little about unionization,
but I know you have to hold elections and all of these things. As I
see unionization in the agricultural work situation, I am bothered as
to how the industrial pattern would work.
I think far too much time has been spent in saying, include them,
instead of coming up with some really creative approaches as to how
the thing is going to work. The same thing applies to workmen's
compensation and all the rest.
We have struggled along in Michigan with a very unusual work-
men's compensation program, for example. Originally, legislation pro-
vided comprehensive workmen's compensation for some and hospital
and medical insurance coverage for others.
Now it looks like we are ready to move to more comprehensive
coverage.
Incidentally, it has been difficult to get insurance companies to coop-
erate with this program. I would contend, on the other hand, they
made a fortune out of it, but they are still dragging their feet.
My main point here is that we need to devise appropriate mecha-
nisms for achieving the same end with a more appropriate means. It
is very easy for people to say we are going to bring workers under the
NLRA, but it is not that simple to devise something that works.
We could, for example, bring in agriculture workers under the
NLRA, and I do not think a great deal would happen. I cannot see
immediate mass unionization movements, and all kinds of bargaining
activities, as a result. It is going to be too difficult to accomplish in the
agricultural environment.
Are we communicating ?
Senator Mondale. We don't agree, but we are communicating.
Dr. Sturt. I want to hit the equity of access thing again. I contend
that the service organizations, many of which have a Federal base —
the Extension Service, the FHA, the SCS, and others, including the
landgrant universities — suffer from what we call hardening of the
attitudes ; we are insensitive.
We develop, over a period of time, insensitivity to people, particu-
larly the rural poor, and there are a lot of barriers to keep people
from enjoying equity of access to services. One of the things that we
have discovered, as we have asked agencies about how were they
insuring that they were providing their services on an equitable
basis, is that they say, "Our doors are always open." We contend that
4557
this is not enough. There are too many barriers. There are psycho-
logical barriers, language barriers, and so forth. For the migrant there
are more barriers than there are for the local poor.
But for the local rural poor there are many barriers, too. You have
an agency that always says, "My doors are always open." So what? I
am not impressed.
Again, I think something has to be done to sensitize agencies in
order to insure this equity of access to services, because the bundle of
public services that we get in this life are, perhaps, more important
than the actual dollar income, when you think of it.
They are certainly very significant. In other words, one's level of
living is not just determined by what his dollar income is. It includes
the whole array of services that are available to him.
Point 4 of the report has to do with what we were talking about,
that is, innovative legislative and administrative institutions must be
designed to provide for rural workers the benefits and protection that
have been provided for nonfarmworkers, recognizing the significant
differences between the farm and nonfarm situation. Appropriate
avenues to provide farmworkers the advantages that have been pro-
vided nonfarmworkers through social legislation must be devised in
order to achieve the same "ends" via a more fitting "means."
This is what I am talking about in the case of unemployment in-
surance. We are going to have to experiment and come up with some-
thing that works. As I mentioned, we experimented with workmen's
compensation in Michigan and we are coming up with something that
works.
We have to experiment with unionization to come up with some-
thing that works, but I do not think you can expect any miracles with
one wave of the hand.
The fifth point in this report has to do with instability of agricul-
tural employment. This, of course, is very important. I am very anxious
to see the Farm Labor and Rural Manpower Service in the Depart-
ment of Labor become an identifiable rural manpower service that
works with migrants and others to help them find nonfarm work, and
that helps the rural poor to find nonfarm work.
It is important that we have a rural manpower service unit that is
identifiable, that is known as the rural manpower unit. Hopefully
there will be people in the servicet hat communicate well, including
some Spanish-speaking people. We have to develop a service that
will help the rural poor and migrants find complementary job op-
portunities.
Senator Mondale. It is very interesting that in the Farm Labor
Service, there are no migrants on any advisory councils that I know of.
Very often people that need the service, and who are using the service,
are not involved in determining how it should work.
We have had several migrants, actual live migrants, who have come
in here to testify. I am sure you have heard their experiences many
times, perhaps many times more than I have. It is a pretty disappoint-
ing picture.
The Labor Department service is not always uniformly received by
the workers. There is a lawsuit in California right now which states
4558
as its basic case that the FLS is accomplishing more harm than good,
and we are going to be hearing from attorneys who have brought that
case).
But it seems very peculiar that a service which is designed to serve
the public, and to serve rural neighborhoods, does not have close con-
tact with the migrants themselves. In other words, how do migrants
see that service ?
For example, how many Spanish-speaking personnel are there?
The Department of Labor told us yesterday they don't have the slight-
est idea. They are trying to find out. For the first time they are
beginning to evolve regulations to require personnel to speak the
language of those who must use the service.
Now, if there was any sensitivity and deep concern for these people,
why didn't that happen the first day these offices were open. That is
where you begin. If you cannot talk to the guy, where are you ?
Dr. Sturt. I agree with you. They do need more Spanish-speaking
personnel. The local office in Lansing, Mich., does have a Spanish-
speaking person.
Senator Mondale. There are some that have them, but it has been
a slow process. And it is one that has been a paternal process. The
power structure begins to drop a Mexican person here or there, but the
people who are using the service have nothing to say.
Wouldn't it be far better if in this service in which their lives are so
deeply involved, and which they know better than any of us because
they must live it, if there were some kind of national migrant council
to advise rural manpower officials about actual migrants?
This town is packed with white, middle- and upper-class people
who are advising the Government on things all the time. We pay them
$100 and $150 a day. If you cut out advising in Washington, the Wash-
ington Hilton would be broke today, and all those bars would be empty
at 6 o'clock tonight.
But you are never going to see a Mexican migrant in those bars. He
cannot afford to come to town, let alone get into one of those joints.
Why don't we have a situation where the agency that is most closely
related to migrants own lives above all consults with migrants and
listens to the poor ? Why don't we do that ?
Dr. Sturt. I think it is a good idea. I could not agree with you
more. There are problems involved in this kind of thing I might add.
Senator Mondale. There are always problems when you talk to
poor folks.
Dr. Sturt. I have gone this route where we tried to set up councils
in various communities.
Senator Mondale. And you involved the workers themselves ?
Dr. Sturt. Yes, sir.
Senator Mondale. And haven't you found they brought strength
to those discussions ?
Dr. Sturt. Unfortunately no; and I am concerned. If I were not,
I would not have spent all these years working with these problems.
Senator Mondale. Why do you say they do not bring any strength ?
Dr. Sturt. We had in Saginaw, Mich., what we call a farm labor
council. I am a great believer, that if you get a variety of people with
4559
different points of view, you can create a forum and you can battle out
the problems and arrive at solutions. I am a great believer in local
forums, and I believe the university has a function to play as a con-
vener of these forums.
Essentially our Agricultural Labor Commission in the State of
Michigan is a State forum where we have former migrants. In Sagi-
naw, for example, there were some migrants on the council. They were
not participative, and I understand why. They felt ill at ease. It just
did not work out.
At the State level we had former migrants on a migrant labor coun-
cil several years ago. These former migrants had had experience in
migrant work and understood what the problems were all about, and
yet they had not developed the ability to articulate to others their own
thoughts.
I am just saying that it sounds better on paper, Senator, than it
actually is.
Senator Mondale. The thing that strikes me is we have had live
migrants testify before us, and I think we learned more from them
than from a lot of other witnesses about the details of their lives and
how they are treated, and how they try to live, and how much they earn,
and their efforts, for example, to find housing and educate their kids.
After all, that is what we need to know, isn't it? We just had the big
cheeses from Labor and Agriculture here yesterday and they as much
as admit that they do not know whether their statistics are sound. They
are based on probability samples and not even counting the people,
and once the migrants are in the stream they don't know what they are
doing, or how, and they do not know how much they earn.
Wouldn't we learn more if we worked with actual living people?
Dr. Sturt. Statistically you would not. You could bring 100 migrant
workers in the room and ask them how much they earn and that would
not improve your statistics one iota, but it would give you a feeling for
some of the basic problems.
In order for advisory groups and councils to be effective the migrants
must be involved in a way that they feel compatible. There has to be
recognition of the language problem and all the rest if you are going
to meaningfully communicate with these people and have something
that is not just a facade.
Now I would like to talk about the instability of farm-labor income.
I do not think that we have ever really done very much constructive
work in the area of trying to mesh jobs together, in order that we come
up with complementary jobs. What are some sets of jobs that might fit
together? Most of us agree the need for farm labor, for seasonal farm-
workers is going to continue although the demand will be less. The
question is how, then, do we provide some sort of complementary in
job opportunities ?
Do we simply give them a guaranteed annual wage ?
This may well be the answer. A lot of farms carry their year-round
hired workers for 12 months, even though they actually only use them
for only 8 or 9 months.
Why couldn't we expect the same farms that carry them for 6 months
to at least share in carrying them for a longer period of time? In
4560
other words, the productive months have to pay for the productive
and nonproductive months. Because people have to have a year round
income.
Point 6 in the report pertains to rural people needing better man-
power services. I feel there should be a spokesman for rural manpower
and rural people, including the migrant.
Over half our farm people in the State of Michigan earn more off
the farm than on the farm, which means that job information and the
bundle of manpower services are very important to our people in rural
Michigan. Yet they have very little access to manpower services.
There are very few manpower offices out in the small towns. Offices
are located in the urban centers, and yet the rural people need these
services. Perhaps, the Department of Labor could be a spokesman for
rural manpower. Then, maybe they could, for example, get the Exten-
sion Service in the Department of Agriculture and other services to
cooperate in providing manpower services of various kinds. "Working
together, they could provide job information, training information, etc.
The Department of Labor could develop cooperative linkages with
existing agencies that are already located in rural communities. I do
not think it is likely that we will see enough money appropriated to
have comprehensive manpower services taken to all these rural com-
munities. But they need them and there is this lack of access because
they do not have them.
I close with simply the comment that for many migrants there are
few alternatives in other forms of work. Our society does not accom-
modate such workers very well. As time passes, the number of migra-
tory workers will continue to decline, with only highly specialized
workers continuing in this type of work.
The fate of the migrant farmworkers is inextricably interwoven
with the fate of agriculture and rural people in general.
I feel strongly as long as we continue to essentially worship cheap
food policy in the United States, as long as rural people are discrimi-
nated against in their request for a fair share of Government assis-
tance, many people including migrants are destined to remain the
people left behind.
I notice that there is a rural affairs council that has been appointed
at the Federal level by the President. Is this a U.S.D.A. council in
effect. I have some basic questions as to whether any one Department
is capable of providing the kind of rural services that are needed in
rural areas.
I think a group such as yours, a committee such as yours, should
point this out.
Senator Mondale. Dr. Sturt, we are most grateful to you for this
most useful statement. I think I am correct that you will shortly be
director of the appropriate program in the Department of Labor?
Dr. Sttjrt. That may well be true, but I have not heard about it.
Senator Mondale. I am sure the President would not want me to
carry the news.
I find your statement helpful. It is encouraging to know the one
head of one department of one university in the country that has
bothered to look at this problem.
4501
I suppose that I can be excused for just making a few comments
here, not in response to your testimony, but which I think expresses
my view on some of these problems.
I have a lot less hope that the bureaucracy is going to be truly
meaningful and relevant in their effort to respond to migrants than
do many people who have studied this problem. I think the migrants
have suffered from an overdose of malignant paternalism. It is a
wonderful way for white people to work out their guilt feelings.
Eleanor Roosevelt visited them, and we had films and documentaries
such as "Harvest of Shame.'' Two years ago we had the educational
television people do a follow-up to "Harvest of Shame." Now, thank
goodness, NBC is going to go back again.
We are going to have another "Harvest of Shame'' revisited, and
we are just having a wonderful time studying and restudying the
migrants. The single most significant aspect of the studies is that the
sitaution is continuing to grow worse in its tragedy. The whole migrant
stream continues to be refueled daily along the Mexican border, Cali-
fornia and Texas, and this has national ramifications.
After these many years we have a sort of ritual where we come up
with new plans, new ideas, and new suggestions, but all of them have
the same paternal base. Every program is phrased in terms of : "This
is something we are going to do for them."
I wonder whether much more time and much more hope might be
found in structuring programs that permit the migrants to do some-
thing for themselves. For example, the right to organize and bargain
collectively, the right to strike, the right to close off that Texas border
from this hemorrhaging of surplus labor that is coming across daily.
If we just did that, I think the economic position of the average
farmworker and migrant would be demonstrably improved. Setting
up a Farm Labor Service in which the farmworkers had a strong hand,
working in cooperation with the government and the farmer, we may
find far more sensitive treatment of that worker and his problems, and
how he get around, so his work can be accomplished for his best
advantage as well as for the advantage of the farmer.
"When dealing with housing problems, we should not just think of
ways of bringing housing to a particular site, but maybe clothing the
migrant with some power over his own housing problems. Because
everywhere the migrant goes today he is absolutely impotent, politi-
cally, economically, socially, culturally to affect his' own life. In every
way he is powerless. He does not count, and I don't think he is even
counted.
We do not even do him the courtesy of counting him every 10 years.
Thus, for all of our little programs here and there — OEO programs,
Labor programs, Agriculture programs — the farmworkers are still
the hardest working, poorest paid people in America. He is still, 40
years after the National Labor Relations Act, fighting for the right
to be recognized.
I would hope that we could begin to see in the Department of Labor
and Department of Agriculture and at local levels, a slight shift, or
maybe major shift, in philosophy, directed toward the impotence
4562
which denies the farmworkers the right to say something about his
own life.
We have seen the same phenomenon with the American Indian for
130 years; more than any other human being, the American Indian
has been the ward of the U.S. Government. We have run his housing,
handled his education, provided his jobs. We have done everything
for him.
Yet today, in every single indicator, there is the Indian described
as a pathetic, hopeless person. He has no power to speak for himself.
I would like to see a national policy which deals not alone with the
specific programs, but deals with the delivery systems from the Federal
level which so many times are frustrated and somehow lose their way.
For example, among Indians we spent $8,200 nationally per capita
for every Indian in this country, through Federal programs, but the
annual income of Indians is about $1,800. If we just close all these
Federal programs down, and send him the money, they would be twice
over the poverty line. But by the time the middle class bureaucracy,
and regional directors, and national offices, and everybody gets their
share, there is nothing left for the Indian, and he is 50 percent below
the poverty line.
And there is this phenomenon of white middle-class programs, like
the missionaries who come to do good, and do very well for themselves,
I think that those people in American society, like the migrant and
the Indian, beset with utter impotence, are totally miserable people.
And no policy should assume that the American character is suddenly
going to change on our own, voluntarily, to become compassionate.
I don't want to paint that bleak picture of America, but I think we
do a lot better in American society where those who seek justice have
some power to demand justice. The postal carriers gave up. They had
the first strikes in 200 years and the Federal Government acted in
about 2 days to raise their pay.
We fooled around here for years, passing bills in the Senate but not
in the House, passing bills in the House but not in the Senate, passing
different bills in the Senate and House, and then not even meeting
to resolve differences. Finally, the postal carriers became desperate.
But unlike the migrant, they had something they could do about
it, and they had a strike and, boy, did we move. Mind you, never in
response to that kind of illegal action. We made that clear. But we
got them money fast.
And I think that our bureaucratic insensitivities, our paternalism,
creates an insensitivity for illegality that I personally despair. I am
a lawyer. I was attorney general in my State. I believe in law and order
and justice. I believe in due process. But I think it is wrong for us to
believe that somehow we are going to do better with migrant farm-
workers than we have all these years unless we give them something
to say about their own lives.
Dr. Sturt. I agree with you. Anything that can be done to dry
up the migrant stream is obviously going to be a step in the right
direction, in view of all the social problems attendant to migrancy.
Senator Mondale. I think migrancy is a curse. We are talking about
economics here today, but we have had child psychiatrists in past
4563
hearings, that said the psychological maiming of the migrant child
through the failure to have a home, the hostility that child felt
wherever he goes, whatever school he is in, and the backroads some of
them have to travel — because they are not even permitted to travel
on the main road — that these kinds of things destroy that kid's
concept of himself.
I think migrancy has to end. I would like to see it abolished.
Dr. Sturt. I feel that legislatures, State legislatures and the Con-
gress should sensitize agencies in their own unique way and they have
done this in some States, I think.
Senator Mondale. We have usually done it where our efforts to
sensitize here in Washington are backed up by a broad political base
back home. Then it usually works, but you look at what we have done
for the Indian. He is worse off today than he was 5-years ago.
We have our committees, and we have our meetings, and we have our
hearings, and sometimes we even pass legislation. But somehow it does
not seem to get down to the folks and make any difference in their
lives, because they are not in a position to demand that programs we
dream up in Washington are properly responsive to their needs.
Dr. Sturt. And migrants generally do not vote. At least they don't
vote in Michigan. I doubt if they even vote in the Valley. I would
be surprised if they did. In fact, I have had several politicians say
exactly this to me, when we tried to arouse interest in some problem,
"After all, these people do not vote."
Senator Mondale. They have some dandy provisions in Texas law
that have discouraged registration and voting too. But we won't go
into that here.
Dr. Sturt. The question of migrants not voting and our respon-
sibility for migrants has been raised in Michigan.
We expect to have 10,000 fewer seasonal farm jobs in midsummer
in Michigan. Many migrants will be unemployed. Some say, "Why
should Michigan be bearing the brunt of all this?" I would contend
that even with all its problems, Michigan is a far better place for
the migrant to be than in Texas. This is why they come, even though
they think there may not be work.
Michigan can expect some migrants this summer, partly because of
the array of services that are available.
All of the migrant problems and farm-labor problems are complex.
We have a continuing problem with newspaper and others who want
instant analysis and simple answers.
I do feel that your border problem appears to be, from what you
are saying, one of the significant things that has to be remedied.
I would also like to submit as part of the evidence a couple other
publications. I have given copies of these books on mechnization and
manpower to Mr. Chertkov. We have a third book that is coming out
on policy recommendations. Essentially, the recommendations will be
an attack on agricultural technology. I feel very strongly that the
Congress and others across the country have not really faced up to
this problem — the human fallout from technology and the imbalance
between physical and social research.
4564
I also brought along for submission a study, entitled "Human Ke-
i?Jl??ST0n FrUlt and Ve£etable Farms" done by Dr. Voland of the
KMC. He writes about the aspiration levels of blacks, whites and
browns, for example. There is also a publication by Dr. Myrtle Reul.
She is one of the exceptionally well-qualified people in this area. She
has written a great deal and spent a year working with migrants,
masquerading as a migrant herself. She used to be on our staff, and
)fj™w aTfc the University of Georgia. She has a book out, entitled
Where Hannibal Lives," which is the story of her year working in
the stream— not observing, but actually working.
With that I would like to thank you for the opportunity \o be
here. If we can help you in any way, we will be happy to do so.
Senator Mondale. We are grateful to you for your useful testi-
mony and we look forward to working with you.
Dr. Sturt, since you have been interrupted in your presentation,
we will print your statement in full at this point in the record, to-
gether with certain of the material which you have appended to your
remarks. I note, however, that some of the materials were also sub-
mitted yesterday, and may be printed elsewhere in this record.
Again, I want to thank you very much for your contribution.
(The prepared statement and other information submitted by Dr
Sturt follows:)
4565
PREPARED STVTEMENT OF I). W. STURT,
Rural Manpower Center
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan
Some Migrant Worker Needs
There is a quiet crisis smoldering in rural America. Changes in the
economic, political, and social organization in rural areas have resulted in
low returns for resources and low levels of living. The migratory farm worker
is caught up in these changes. Many migratory farm workers, farm operators,
and rural non-farm residents are a part of the rural poor, the silent minority
in our society that are, in truth, the people left behind.
To understand the problems confronting the migratory worker one must con-
sider what is happening in rural America generally, the impact of agricultural
technology upon rural people and the inadequacy of rural institutions in helping
rural people solve their problems. There are, of course, a special set of prob-
lems, associated with the migrancy of farm workers; however, many of the problems
confronting migrants are representative of what is happening to agricultural
manpower in general, and what Is happening to rural people.
The American public has long been enamored with the marvels of agricultural
technology and the cheap food that this technology has made possible. The agricul-
tural establishment, spearheaded by the U.S.D.A. and its land-grant university
affiliates, has carried out a massive research and education effort which has
made it possible for American farmers to supply the food and fiber requirements
of American consumers at relatively low prices. The enthusiastic public support
for cheap food policies has tended to place such policies above questioning.
4566
The cost of cheap food is greater than it at first appears. Among other
considerations, the cost of cheap food must be measured in terms of what happens
to the people involved in the production of this food and what happens to the
rural communities where these people live. From the overview, it would appear
that the cost is high Indeed. The human fallout from unbridled technological
Innovation includes, among others, many migratory workers.
The Structure of the Hired Farm Work Force - Migratory farm workers in the U.S.
are a part of the hired farm work force. In 1968, approximately three million
people did some work on farms in the U.S.; however, only 66 percent of these
worked more than 25 days. The seasonal work force, those working from 25 to
150 days, numbered approximately one million, with those working more than 150
days numbering about 0.6 million.
Migratory workers are usually a part of the seasonal farm work force, and
the number of seasonal farm workers in the U.S. is declining rapidly. In 1968,
there were 279,000 migrant workers reported by the Economic Research Service of
the U.S.D.A. They worked an average of 124 days per worker, with total farm
and non-farm wages averaging $1,562 per worker, or $12.60 per day. Average
earnings for farm work only were $917 per worker or $11.45 per day. The numbers
of workers, length of time employed, and other statistics relative to migratory
and other farm workers is detailed in Table I.
The three migratory worker streams, the East Coast, West Coast, and midwest
stream, have been well documented and are shown in Figure I.
Many of the so-called social problems associated with the migrant movement
of farm workers — health, education, and other problems — are due to the fact that
our society is not geared to accommodate farm workers on the move. Also, community
discrimination is a serious problem as migrants seek to obtain services provided
for others more permanently located, more readily accepted and accommodated in
2
4567
"O
CM
o
m o
in m o
m m o
o o
co in o
o o m o
ID
I- >-
CM
o\ CO
O 00 NO
r» no —
m r-»
i o — m
1 CO O NO NO
c
CD ro
O
u
CL Q
3
■3-
rf on
m in —
r~ oo vo
<* <*
i -a- m vo
i r~ r» no "*
ID
E
UJ
o
l_
CM
oo in
00 On m
m to cm
•* r»
i o> to m
r~- o o o>
ID
a
1- (0
On rO
"* CM —
m r-» cm
Is- ^
i no o in
i — r~- cm —
-i-
ID
CD CD
O
in
in cm
no r-- to
— — —
— —
i r~ to o
1 — — CM
c
3
CL >-
Q
i
O
to
z
W CD
no
o «*
ro no r-
o o o
CM O
i m o in
i in o oo in
ro i_
O
to
** CM
-3- rr cm
CM CM CM
— — "
i m cm co
i — — — _
a o
Z
i —
i
3=
TD
CM
in
o m
o o o
O o in
o o
in m o o
m m o O
ID
c
L.
L. >■
CD t)
CL Q
O
a
LO
o
ON —
On tO in
cm m no
«* ^1-
-a- o\ cm r-
— O CM —
i ctn — m to
i r^ oo r~ on
O ON
O — ON
co co r^
ID
UJ
1/1
CD
l_
"*
to r~
r- o —
On — r»
•* CO
in — oo no
— CT» to NO
E
en
1- (0
to
oo r~-
cm in to
CM *3- O
r- o>
m to o m
i r^ no no cm
L
ro
CD (1)
o
oo
00 NO
o O ON
to to to
cm in
r- on r^ >*
1 CM CM CM to
10
S
CL >-
a
1
Ll_
CM CM
CM —
in CD
.
CT>
— -3-
•3- to oo
O O O
o> co
O NO CO On
i •«*■ to in m
(D 1-
o
r»
oo r-~
On O- On
■^ ^3- ^r
ON CM
<* r~ m to
i to to to to
O O
z
— CM
CM —
i
IS
X?
CM
o
in o
o o in
o o m
O O
m o m m
m o o o
CD
t- >-
CD 10
CL Q
o
a
NO
CM CM
cm r- on
— NO o
no m
"tf P» ON NO
i r~« on cm on
E
i_
—
cm a\
CM CM Ov
co oo r-
cm m
i r^ r-~ r» o
i_
ro
ID
UJ
c
in
O
CD
1_
NO
— to
mom
m m o
oo m
m
00 On to m
z
CT
l_ (D
<tf
co —
r» oo **
co — to
■sr <=r
in o
i co to oo ^f
ro
CD CD
o
fO
"3" On
no r^- cm
<3- in "3-
•>=r r^
r- i— o m
i ro to to in
"o
s
CL >-
a
i
c
E
— _ .
CM CM
CM CM — to
L
■o
ID
in cd
U_
>--*
vO
— ON
r-» o in
o o —
— ON
o — oo «*
1 O to ro O
(D L.
o
CM ON
m ^ CM
NO VO NO
— to
•<a- to |-~ CM
1 in ^ m in
Q O
z
CM CM
CM CM CM
i
3
l_ V_
On
in ro
— o —
00 NO CM
tT On
m -^ "d- to
r~ m on r^ o
0 Q)
m
CM ON
— o —
O CM 00
oo <=*
CM cm to r~-
rO CM "3- o r~-
J3 •+- J*.
D
On
CM NO
_ i— <a-
co in cm
r^ no
m to
r~ ^
£ O L.
O
*
•>
* •>
* *
Z3 O
j=
CM
CM
CM —
z s
1—
.*:
!_
O
3 -*
1_
£ O
If)
l_ StO
© —
u
ro -^
u o
jj:
H- E L.
L. O
T3 +-
00
i_
c i_ o
O © -C
<D 01
NO
o
O ro 3
i- in u
+- —
o\
X
C >4-
73 in
O 1-
UJ
CD
CD
>-
t= E ^
L. O
© CD
CO
+-
+-
(-
©
-1- O L I"'* O JZ O)
— +-
CD
cr
zi c ro o
T3 -O C
© CJ
CO
Q +-
© -C
CD -C
>
^<: ro
O >♦- 2
© ro CD —
CO <U
ct:
z —
4- 3
© +- 3
L. S
J= -C
> — c -o
l_
UJ
< CD -C
— C
— •— c
(-
O
-t- +- t_ E
O — C 1_
<0
^
+- 3
©-CO
id r O
o
5 E
CO L
— CO-©©
-C
or
or — c
— 3 Z
E S Z
<
l_
3: S -C ro
Q. — © +- x:
o
o
o -c o
(0
©
E ro
-r- ><-
E fl) +- +-
3
— 1 s z
2
u_
u_
1- u_
O c
© +- ^ < o
o
LU
ro
O
c O
_l
o
lo-
Z
3 z
_J
X
<
o
4568
T3
CN
.
inirioo
in
in
in o
CD
1- >-
•o co e~\ cr>
CO
CM
CTi 00
c
CD (0
O
L
LU
to
0_ Q
a
<* cn ro in
^f
rn
"* K>
E
L.
<D
l_
Ki't ro i^i
CTN
oo
■<a- r^
ro
CT
L. (D
-—
O CN CTi CM
00
in
•3- o\
ro
Q) 0)
o
r» ">i- in cm
m
vo "t
c
3
Q- >-
Q
o
z.
XJ
(O 0)
>-J*
co to m ^j-
vo
r~
m \o
(0 i-
d
•* co "^ —
CN
>* f^\
10
Q O
z
3
ro
O
X>
CM
O m o o
O
o
in m
CD
I- >-
in oo — cm
VO
vO
<* ^
Q-
C
CD fO
o
ZJ
1_
a. a
Q
CO 00 o o
—
o
— o
O
ro
L.
LU
CO
o
CD
i_
m ro o> <*
VO
■^r
r~ in
+-
e
CT
i- ro
co en co ^r
m
— CM
i_
(0
CD 0
O
f\ o o
VO
«a-
o\ oo
X!
ro
3;
CL S-
Q
* *
*
*
0
u_
— CM
CO
+-
in
•-5
X)
X)
W CD
ro
>-.*
o in oo o
CM
in
o en
(D L.
O
— -a- o o
ro
co r~-
CO
Q O
Z
— CM
Kl
—
c
S
0
+-
XJ
CN
.
in in in o
in
in
o o
0
I- >
rn in o\ vo
vD
o
vo m
3
c
0 ro
o
m ■ a ■
•
• •
O
E
l_
CL Q
o
fO o o o
—
—
CM —
-C
1_
ro
ro
LU
3
c
in
o
CD
!_
cr\ rn r^ oo
in
ro
CN r^~\
X)
z
tr
1- (D
00 CM 00 VO
o
o>
VO CN
c
(0
0 0
o
r- oo vo cm
r~-
r~
in ho
ro
X>
Q_ >-
Q
10
CI
— CM
PO
3
ro
o
+-
CT
l_
■o
ro
(0 0
4-
u.
^-^
cf\ oo «* ^r
CO
CM
•^- in
10
(0 V-
O
in r~ in —
vo
CM —
0
Q O
z.
— CM
ro
—
— —
l_
S
0
c
0
io
i_ i_
o\ — oo vo
^r
o
ON O
-C
<D Q)
W
on rn o in
CM
CM
r~ "?r
■+-
X) M- J£
n
cm r~~ rn cm
n
vO
CN VO
£ O i-
O
*
*
*
o
3 O
.c
CM
■+-
Z. s
(-
X)
0
XJ
c
^
3
a:
O
o
i_
X)
s
0
0
LU
ui
-z>
u
3
in
o
>-
• —
ro
C
u
<c
(0
XJ
V
X) +-
s
XJ
O 0
10
C
0 W
s:
in
i_
.c l_
0
o
+- —
cr
CM
0
2 O
-^
u
o u
<
>
E
>■
i_
0 0)
U_
W c
o
(O
1_
o
— +-
t- 0
L. L.
O
3
1
0 O
U_
0 x: a\
X)
0 O
>»+-
1
to ro
O
^ +- o\ <$■
c
Ji
l- ro
>4-
(_
(_ ■* "sr cm
(0
1- 10
O t-
O
(0
z
O in r~ — i
O ^
+- CO
jr
o
5 10 1 1 o
o
3 0
ro —
to
o
0 in in in
m
X)
i- E
1_
LU
h-
— _j cm r-» —
CM
co c
0
_l
<
— in
— o
J3
00
or
<
< CM
s: -z.
E
<
Z>
3
K
Q
z
X) 0 0
0 3 C
O O c
o or -
- N IO
4569
CD
o
E
ca
o
4-*
TO
5)
E
>»
CD
CO
CD
CO
3
5-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B
4570
rural communities. The relatively low status of farm work affects all hired
farm workers, particularly seasonal workers on the move.
Technology and the Future Demand for Seasonal Workers
Mechanization and new technology, particularly in the harvesting of fruits
and vegetables, is rapidly reducing the requirements for seasonal farm workers.
The Rural Manpower Center task force, estimating the number of farm worker jobs
which will be disolaced by 1975 in the harvesting of fruits and vegetables in
the U.S., has indicated that there will be some 250,000 fewer jobs in 1975
than 1968. This includes 53,540 fewer harvest jobs in California, 50,774 fewer
in Oregon, 35,782 fewer in North Carolina, 19,497 fewer in Michigan, 18,271
fewer in Washington, and 13,553 fewer in Texas. I feel that these estimates
are conservative. Many of these jobs will be those involved in the harvest of
grapes, bush and pole beans, and cucumbers. The 1968 seasonal peak employment
by crop and state is indicated in Tables 2 and 3.
Most important is the fact that the complementarity in employment will be
significantly disturbed. Michigan is a good example. Michigan has some 30 crops
involving seasonal farm workers. Usually farm workers come to Michigan in May
and June for work in harvesting strawberries and asparagus. From this work they
move Into the cherry and pickle harvest, which is followed by the tomato and
apple harvest. This year most of the tart cherries and about 40 percent of the
cucumbers will be harvested mechanically. All crops considered, during the mid-
season period from mid-July to mid-August there will be an estimated 10,000
fewer jobs. This creates a special set of problems for the workers, the growers,
and for the communities involved.
Mechanization also creates new jobs; however, most migrants do not possess
the skills to fill these jobs. A good cherry picker does not necessarily make
a good cherry harvester operator. In fact, it would appear that most migrant
6
4571
TABLE 2. — Estimated Peak Seasonal Employment,
by Major Crop, United States, I9681
■Crop
Peak Seasonal
Emp loyment,
1968
2
Number of Workers
Oate
Strawberries
119,000
June
Tomatoes
84,900
September
Beans
77,900
August
Bushberries
57,500
July
App les
57,300
October
Grapes
53,000
September
Potatoes
52,600
October
Cucumbers
46,900
August
Citrus Fruits
42,100
December
Peaches
37,400
July
Cherries
31,700
July
Crops listed are those in which 30,000 or more seasonal hired workers were
employed at midmonthly peak.
Employment in all activities including planting, cultivating,
harvest i ng.
and
Bureau of Employment Security, In-Season Farm Labor Reports for the 15th of
each month, U.S. Department of Labor.
4572
TABLE 3. — States Employing More Than 10,000 Domestic Migratory
Workers at Peak Employment and Number of Workers Employed,
Periods of Employment, and Month of Peak Employment, 1968 '
State
Peak Number
Migrants Employed
Periods of
Emp loyment
Peak
Emp loyment
Cal Ifornia
62,500
J an. -Dec.
September
Michigan
40,000
Ap r . -Nov .
August
Florida
21,500
Jan. -Dec.
February
Texas
19,800
J an. -Dec.
July
Ohio
18,500
May -Oct.
September
New York
14,800
May -Nov.
September
Oregon
13,300
J an. -Dec.
August
Oklahoma
13,000
J an. -Dec.
June
Wash i ngton
12,500
J an. -Dec.
June
New Jersey
12,100
Apr. -Nov.
August
Migrants include intrastate and interstate workers.
Bureau of Employment Security, U.S. Department of Labor.
4573
workers do not possess the basic mechanization skills to successfully compete
for these jobs, and they are being filled by local workers.
The Migrant in Transition - The migrant farm worker is but one part of the massive
migration of people from rural to urban areas and from farm to non-farm work.
From 1960-66 the average annual net migration of farm people to urban areas was
about 800,000, many of whom were farm workers. For farm workers the move to the
cities has been more "push" than "pull". There was no other place to go.
Migrant farm workers have been caught up in this mass movement.
The hidden hardship in migration is the backmovement, where people move
back and forth between geographical areas in search of work and an environment
In which they feel culturally comfortable.
In Michigan a study of the Mexican American migrant in transition in which
the various stages of transition have been explored indicates that some 1,000-
1,500 Mexican Americans drop out of the stream each year and attempt to settle
In Michigan. Jobs, housing, kinship ties, and the like all play an important
part in the settling out process.
Immediate Needs
Some of the immediate needs of migrant workers are si ml lar to those of other
rural people; however, the needs of migrants tend to be more acute.
I. Adequate housing is needed both for migrant farm workers employed in
agriculture and those who wish to move into non-farm jobs. Migrant hous-
ing for those employed in agriculture has improved, and growers will
continue to improve housing as licensing and other forms of encourage-
ment take effect.
Providing adequate housing for migrant agricultural workers places
a special economic hardship upon many growers, especially when the
4574
housing is used for only limited periods during the year. Recognizing
this in Michigan, for example, the state legislature is considering a
cost-sharing proposal whereby the state would enter into a partnership
with the grower to upgrade the quality of housing. Cost-sharing in
housing with the state and federal government participating with the
grower would appear to be a step in the right direction.
Improved health, education, and welfare services for migrant workers
and their families are needed. Already there are special programs of
this type underway; however, efforts must be made to make them more
responsive to the needs of migrant people.
The need for special food and food stamp programs for migrant
families is obvious, particularly during those periods when jobs are
not available. The bureaucratic bottlenecks that migrant families
encounter as they attempt to oarticipate in food and food stamp pro-
grams is most discouraging. In view of the average income of migrant
workers and the length of time employed, perhaps it would be In their
best interest and the public interest to waive the requirements and
permit all inter-state migrants to participate in these programs.
Equally important is the need for equity of access to the on-going
social and other services provided In the communities where migrants
temporarily reside. The barriers to obtaining these services are mani-
fold, including language barriers, transportation difficulties, psycholo-
gical barriers, and the insensitivlty and resistance of local public
servants. There is a serious lack of coordination among agencies pro-
viding special migrant services; the overlap could perhaps be avoided
through the use of state and local coordinating councils as well as
through the establishment of migrant one-stop service centers.
10
4575
3. Employment services for migrant farm workers should be improved.
Migrants need better information on the availability of jobs; they
need assistance in job scheduling. In spite of the surplus of workers
in general, individual growers may not be able to find an adequate
supply of workers because of the distribution of workers with particular
skills at a particular time.
As migrants search out non-farm work, special employment assistance
is necessary, not only job Information, but also the bundle of services
that will assist him in making the transition to a dramatically differ-
ent type of work in an oftentimes hostile environment.
4. Training and basic education are paramount needs for the migrant who
is leaving agricultural enployment, as they are for many workers who
will be remaining in agriculture. Increasingly, jobs in agriculture
will require the skilled and the semi-skilled, for both seasonal and
year-round employment. Migrants should be included in on-going training
programs as well as programs designed especially for them. Mechaniza-
tion training which prepares migrant workers for both farm and non-farm
work is one type of training that appears to offer promise. More
attention should be given to training migrant workers at their home
base, which for many Mexican-Americans, means Texas.
Long-Run Needs
Other long-range and more conprehensi ve approaches could have a far reaching
and positive impact upon the future of migrant farm workers and farm workers in
general as well as the rural poor, which includes many farm operators.
I. Technology is not without its costs, and a mechanism should be developed
to guide the rate and direction of technological change in agriculture.
Inter-departmental and intra-departmental technology councils should
11
4576
weigh the anticipated impact of public investments in technological
research. The imbalance towards physical science research should be
redressed in order to encourage more social science research. A product
orientation should give way to a people orientation, as the human
consequences of technology are put in proper perspective.
2. A system of social and economic rewards based upon human resources
rather than property resources should be encouraged. Along these lines,
wage supports would be more appropriate than price supports.
For example, a proposal being considered by the Michigan Agricul-
tural Labor Commission would provide a one percent handling tax on all
food, the revenues to be used to subsidize worker wages, improve hous-
ing, etc. Such a program would permit consumers to help improve wages
and the cost would be nominal. Perhaps it would also discourage the
rapid shift towards mechanization as growers attempt to cope with the
technological treadmill.
3. Rural people deserve equity of access to a I I public services, and
organizations and agencies should be sensitized to provide these ser-
vices to all rural people, including farm workers. The disparity
between the quality of services offered to rural and urban people is
further compounded when one considers the quality of services provided
many rural people who, for a variety of reasons, are beyond the service
horizon of many rural agencies and organizations. Many rural people
are untouched by federal, state, and local agencies operating in rural
America; the purveyors of these services are not psychologically or
socially geared to accommodate the special needs of many of these
people, with whom they have great difficulty identifying.
4. Innovative legislative and administrative Institutions must be designed
to provide for rural workers the benefits and protection that have been
12
4577
provided for non-farm workers, recognizing the significant differences
between the farm and non-farm situation. Appropriate avenues to provide
farm wcrkers the advantages that have been provided non-farm workers
through social legislation must be devised in order to achieve the same
"ends" via a more fitting ,:means".
5. The instability of agricultural employment, due in part to the seasonal
nature of agricultural work, is a major problem confronting many hired
farm workers, including migratory workers. Non-casual farm workers
worked only 135 days doing farm work in 1968; migratory farm workers
averaged only 30 days of farm work, ftore complementary work opportunities
must be explored to provide more work days per year for al I of these
workers. A guaranteed annual wage to help stabilize income should be
explored further.
6. Rural people need better manpower services. They need access to the
whole spectrum of services that could equip them for today's job market,
including counseling, training, and job information. Recognizing the
significance of slowing down the flow of people from rural to urban
areas and the need for rural community development, emphasis should be
placed upon taking jobs to peoole rather than people to jobs. Various
incentives for improving employment opportunities in rural America have
been proposed, and should be considered; however, comprehensive manpower
services must be coupled with these efforts. To provide the manpower
services needed by rural America, including migratory farm workers, an
expanded rural manpower service within the U.S. Department of Labor is
a must.
There will continue to be a demand for a limited number of seasonal farm
workers. Mechanization has made dramatic Inroads upon the labor requirements
13
4578
for some crops; other crops will be hand harvested for years to come. The develop-
ment of local sources of farm labor supply provides one alternative to the
migratory movement of people.
For many migrants there are few alternatives in other forms of work. And
yet, our society does not accommodate such workers very well. As time passes,
the number of migratory workers will continue to decline, with only highly
specialized workers continuing in this type of work.
The fate of the migrant farm worker is Inextricably interwoven with the
fate of agriculture and rural people In general. As long as public policy in
the U.S. is dominated by the drive for cheap food, as long as rural people and
rural areas are discriminated against in their quest for a fair share of govern-
mental services and assistance, many rural people, including migrant workers,
are destined to remain the people left behind.
U.
4579
Excerpts from
"HUMAN RELATIONS ON MICHIGAN FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE FARMS,"
By Maurice E. Voland-*
Department of Sociology-
Michigan State University
This is a summary of the project : "A Study of Interpersonal Relations
Among Managers of Employees of Fruit and Vegetable Farms With Emphasis on
Labor Management Practices Utilized." This project was conceived by the late
Professor James R. Hundley of the Department of Sociology at Michigan State
University. This report is dedicated to his inspiration and memory.
"The material in this project was prepared under a Grant from the Office
of Manpower Policy, Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, under
the authority of Title I of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962.
Researchers undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are en-
couraged to express freely their professional Judgement. Therefore, points
of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the
official position or policy of the Department of Labor."
•Assisted by: Charles W. Given and William E. Vredevoogd, Department of
Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
4580
Introduction
During the past twenty years there have been many investigations and descrip-
tions of the migrant agricultural labor force. In many cases the reports cast
the employers of migrants as hard taskmasters, demanding long hours of hard
work in return for extremely low wages. Few of these studies attempt to analyze
in an objective manner the conditions of the migrant laborers and their relation-
ship with employers and other members of the communities in which they work.
To our knowledge, social scientists have not systematically investigated
the labor-management relations within agricultural work groups , especially the
relationship of migrant agricultural labor to their employers. This study was
conceived to answer the following questions:
What is the nature of the supervisory problem from the perspec-
tives of the manager and of the worker? What effect do various
kinds of interpersonal relationships have on work performance
on fruit and vegetable farms? What is the effect of various
management practices on the farm work group? Is it possible
that both the manager and the worker can change their behavior
to make the work situation more satisfactory? What is there
about the work situation that could be changed to further
accommodate both the farm enterprise and the farm worker?
What are the interpersonal factors involved in less than full
labor and farm productivity? What is the nature of conflicts
and disagreements within the farm work environment? How do
managers and workers perceive the work situation and its
problems? What are the complaints on both sides?
Other studies completed by the Rural Manpower Center at Michigan State
University found that Michigan farmers tend to neglect labor management prac-
tices. This study was undertaken to inventory the types of management and
supervision practices utilized by Michigan fruit and vegetable farmers and to
determine which of the practices used by these farmers prove most effective.
For the purposes of this study, a stratified random sample of 100 farms
that held Migrant Labor Housing Licenses during the 1966 growing season was
drawn. Interviews were completed with 76 of the original farm operators included
4581
in the sample. Of those 2k cases that were not included, 10 had gone out of
business since the summer of 1966, six had changed their mode of operation so
that they would not he employing migrant labor during the 196? growing season,
and eight were out of the state and not available for interview during the
interviewing period.
Due to the budgetary limits of this study, no substitution was made for
these 2k cases. However, the 76 cases included in the study are considered to
be representative of all farm operations that utilize migrant agricultural labor
in their farming operations in Michigan.
The research design called for the selection of a limited number of this
original sample of farms for re-contact during the harvest season. At this
time observations of the work flow of the farm and supervision style of the
farm operator were recorded, and interviews with members of the migratory labor
force who were working on the farm were conducted. Consequently, a purposive
sample was drawn from the original sample that would represent proportionally
by size of crew and crops harvested, all fruit and vegetable farms in the state
that utilize migrant labor for harvest purposes. Migrant laborer heads of
households and single males over 16 years of age who were not traveling with
their families were interviewed on the 38 farms that were included in this
purposive sample. A total of 238 interviews were completed with migrant laborers.
*
PART III
Summary and Observations
The brief analysis of the data presented thus far in this report does
not give the total picture of the farmer-migrant situation in Michigan. Much
of the rich insight that can be gained from a study such as this does not come
from "hard' survey data, but is found in the impressions picked up by the field
staff, intuitive Joining of disparate fragments of data, comments made by
various respondents and the climate of the total community in which the research
was conducted.
4582
Since this study dealt with structural variables , we did not utilize any
social-psychological variables that might give us insight into the makeup of the
individual. However, one of the key intuitive pieces of data the research team
gained from the field was the fact that the attitude of the farmer toward his
crew of migrants, and toward migrants in general, is one of the key factors
leading to satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the part of migrants. The data
presented earlier bear out again what is generally perceived as being important
for maintenance of good employer-employee relations : wages and housing. We
did not measure attitudes of the farm operators in this study. Repeatedly,
however, the respondents indicated that the way the farmer treated them was
Just as important, or in some instances more so, than the wages he was paying
or the housing that he provided. The farmer whom they considered to be kind,
understanding, sympathetic, concerned, helping and a conscientious businessman
was adjudged the most desirable man to work for. In most cases this year, the
wages paid were quite similar for crop and time of the year, this being to some
degree dictated by the new Minimum Wage Legislation that became effective this
season. On the other hand, there was a great variation in size, condition and
quality of housing as well as other facilities offered by the farmer; when the
migrants perceived that the farmer was interested in them and concerned with
them as people, they were much more willing to put up with deficiencies in the
housing than they were when the farmer wasn't perceived so favorably.
The informal network that exists to tie migrant families and crews together
over a large geographic area is quick to transmit both positive and negative
information about a particular farmer. These same informal networks perhaps
are one of the prime reasons that some farmers find it relatively easy to main-
tain a full crew, while others never find enough help. This might be demon-
strated by the fact that the one farm in the sample that demonstrated the
4583
greatest holding power in regard to a migrant crew (members of the same families
had been returning for 20 years) had some of the worst housing that interviewers
saw during the entire summer - but the farmer was a very likable sort of person.
Another important factor is the number of months each year that migrant
labor is required to harvest crops. Those farmers who had only one crop, such
as cherries, where the picking season rarely exceeded three weeks, seemed more
concerned for migrant welfare than those farmers who hire different crews through-
out the summer. This difference seems attributable to two factors. First, the
majority of single crop farmers were involved in cherry production. The major
cherry producing area is centered in a small geographic area. Thus, there is
keen competition for workers during this one short season. This competition
is limited to a small area, and farmers must go all out in order to lure suf-
ficient help to harvest their crop. Secondly, the harvesting season for cherries
is short. The product must be harvested at a certain time with only small
tolerance for early or late harvest. This also sharpens competition for labor,
motivating the farmer to utilize all methods at his disposal to obtain a suf-
ficient quantity of workers. This suggests that the farmer who is dependent on
one crop for his livelihood (tart cherries) is more conscious of how important
it is for him to maintain good labor-management relations, and therefore, he
always attempts to keep his best foot forward so that he will not be caught
short without a harvest crew. On the other hand, when the farmer requires a
steady crew for a large portion of the harvest season, it might be said that
due to increased interaction over a long period of time both the migrant workers
and the farmers are better able to accommodate to the needs and wishes of the
other group.
It seemed significant that farmers who had long industrial employment experi-
ence were much more aware of the needs of the migrants . Perhaps , having been
4584
defined as "labor" more often than not in his industrial experience, he was more
aware of the special needs and desires of that group. Consequently, when he
assumed the management role in the farming operation, he was more willing to
accommodate to the needs of his employees.
When we look at the communities throughout the state in which the migrants
work, we sense a great variation among communities in their response to the
migrant workers. It seemed that where migrants were used for the harvest of
only one crop (cherries), the community tended to be much more sensitized to
their needs. It seemed to us that these communities had made greater efforts
to provide for medical facilities, day-care for children, special recreational
activities, stocking of special food items in grocery stores and generally a
more open and permissive atmosphere than was evident in communities where migrants
were present over a longer period of time. This probably results from the eco-
nomic dependence of farmers and thus of the larger community on sufficient num-
bers of migrants in order to successfully and profitably harvest the crops.
Consequently, they were especially conscious of what was required for maintain-
ing good migrant-community, and concurrently, mi grant -farmer relations.
In contrast , where migrants were in the community over a long period of
time during the season, the community seemed to forget that these people were
present. In Southwestern Michigan the largest number of migrants are present
during the strawberry harvest early in the season. It is at this time that
the communities open up and extend courtesies to the migrants who are present.
This is the period when religious and community organizations are especially
active in the communities and the migrant camps , attempting to meet the needs
of the individuals. However, following strawberry season, the people of the
community Beem to forget that there still are large numbers of migrants who
are working and will be working there until late in the fall. Most community
4585
and religious organizations seem to curtail their activities or cease operation
entirely following strawberry harvest. Consequently, as the season progresses,
it becomes more and more difficult for the migrant to obtain the various ser-
vices that he might require from the community, and even the businessmen who
may be willing to take their money have little desire to accommodate the special
wishes and needs of the migrant labor force.
Moving on to another important subject, we need to consider the rapid in-
crease in mechanization in the harvest of almost all horticultural crons in
Michigan. In the not too distant past, in addition to harvesting fruits and
vegetables, migrant laborers were required for hoeing and weeding of many crops.
Today, selective herbicides have been substituted for a large proportion of the
hoeing, so there is little of this type of work left for the unskilled migrant.
Technology as well as plant breeding have made it possible to mechanically har-
vest almost all fruit and vegetable crops grown in Michigan today. The few
exceptions seem to include strawberries and peaches — and they may not be hold-
outs for many more years .
Consequently, as mechanization moves more and more into the harvest of these
crops, smaller numbers of migrants will be required for harvest. In cany cases,
one mechanical harvester manned by one to five workers will displace 100 or
more hand pickers. Two questions plague us here — (l) What will become of those
who are displaced by machines? and (2) Where will farmers find people who have
the skills to operate the mechanical harvesters and allied equipment?
These questions bear directly on the age, educational level, and other
skills of the migrant group. The Negroes and the Mexican-Americans in our sam-
ple demonstrate the possibility of breaking out of the migrant cycle. The
Mexican-American as well as the Negro respondents in this study placed a high
value on education for their children. The Negro respondents had higher
3-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 5
4586
educational attainments themselves than the other two ethnic groups. Our im-
pression was that there would still he enough Jobs requiring hand picking during
the next 10 years to keep the diminishing numbers of Negroes and Mexican-
Americans who were older, less skilled, and less educated busy. In time, how-
ever, even these reduced numbers of migrants will no longer be needed. Their
children seem destined to receive a much better education than they themselves
had and should be able to fit into the industrial labor market better than their
parents did. The children have the ability to capitalize on increasing oppor-
tunity in industrial and service employment, and they should not be forced to
seek employment in the fields. However, the picture for the Southern white
respondents in our study does not seem to be as bright. Their low educational
attainment, low educational aspirations and low commitment to education for
their children, their negative experiences in the industrial labor market, and
their high incidence of social deviance seem to suggest that these people and
their offspring will not fit into the urban-industrial-service economy in the
future.
Perhaps, if we consider that many of the Mexican-American and Negro respond-
ents look upon migratory agricultural work as a way "up and out" for themselves
or their children, we can understand their higher levels of aspiration. This
group of respondents was interested in something better for themselves , but
especially for their children. By and large, our Southern white respondents
were failures in society. Many of them had industrial employment experience,
but they had been ejected from the industrial labor force for one reason or
another, and the doors to re-entry were closed to them. Many of them had marked
patterns of social deviance and had escaped to the migrant agricultural work
force because of the cloak of anonymity it afforded them. In short, our Southern
white respondents seemed to represent that segment of our population who had
4587
lost on every count and had no hope of recouping their losses. With this in
mind, perhaps we should consider our second question — vhere is the farmer to
find the people to operate his mechanical harvesting equipment during the har-
vest season? It seems evident that there will not he enough local labor avail-
able during the harvest season to man this equipment, so outside help will he
required for some time to come. However, it takes an operator with some mechani-
cal skill to keep in operation many of' the complex pieces of harvest equipment .
In addition, due to the high cost and complexity of the harvest equipment and
the short harvest season, the farmer cannot gamble on breakdowns of the equip-
ment— and by the same token cannot afford to have standby equipment.
As far as we can tell, few Mexican-Americans and Negroes have experience
with machinery. The Southern white members of the sample demonstrated consider-
ably more experience, hut their social instability is such that they are gen-
erally poor risks when assigned to the complex mechanical harvesting equipment.
It will be necessary to help more migrants gain the necessary skills to operate
the harvest equipment or further modifications of the equipment to require even
less manpower will have to be made if the farmer is to be able to harvest his
crop.
Due to the present low skill level and the high incidence of social devi-
ance and instability generally present in the migrant work force, the farmer
will need to become a more innovative manager if he is to retain a competitive
position in tomorrow's agriculture. He must concern himself with work simplifi-
cation which will make it possible for him to utilize the unskilled workers
who will he available to him. He will need to become more aware of his personal
relationship with his workers in a positive manner. It would appear that ad-
vancing technology will never make it completely possible to replace hand labor
for those farmers raising horticultural speciality crops. Thus, these farmers
4588
will need not only to sharpen their skills as businessmen , technicians, as plant
and soil scientists , hut as labor managers as veil.
From the observations made in this study, it can be concluded that many of
the horticultural speciality crop farmers in Michigan today do not possess those
needed skills , and they will fall victim to the advances that are being made in
agriculture. It impressed this research team that farmers who possessed the
needed labor management skills to evoke a high level of productivity also main-
tained hi#i morale and Job satisfaction among their workers. However, farmers
lacking these labor management skills also seemed to lack one or more of the
skills that will be necessary to maintain a competitive position in tomorrow's
agriculture.
4589
Senator Mondale. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Gnaizda, deputy
director of California Rural Legal Assistance.
Will you please proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GNAIZDA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFOR-
NIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Mr. Gnaizda. After your latest comment, I am not sure it is neces-
sary for me to speak at all. I concur with your criticisms and lack of
faith in the bureaucracy and paternalism that exists.
The title of my prepared testimony is "The Grapes of Wrath" and
the Labor Department-sponsored "Harvest of Shame." I would like
to submit it for the record along with some court briefs, at this point.
Senator Mondale. We will print the entire statement.
(The information referred to follows :)
4590
"THE GRAPHS OF WRATH" AMU THE LABOR DEPARTMENT-SPONSORED HARVEST OF
SHAME
Ry Robert Onaizda,
Deputy Director, California Rural Le^al Assistance, Inc.
Three decades ago, John Steinbeck recorded the Joad family's
futile struggle to earn 15 cents an hour while competing with
300,000 surplus farm workers brought to California by grower
promises that outweighed the available jobs in order to de-
press wages and working conditions. (I have attached the appli-
cable page as Exhibit 1, because it accurately summarizes
present conditions . )
Despite the 1933 VJagner-Peyser Act, and despite some
glorious rhetoric, the only significant change for the migra-
tory farmworker since the Thirties is that the grower has
been joined by one of the most powerful and wealthy, albeit
benign corporations in America, the federally-supported and
sponsored State Farm Labor Service (1970 fiscal year budget:
$21,215,000, and 2000 employee-slots).
A former California Farm Labor Office employee, and ex-
mayor of Hollister, recently filed an affidavit with a Federal
Court in San Francisco (250 Farmworkers v. Secretary of Labor
George Shultz, N.D. Cal. C-70-4S1 AJZ) that conditions for the
farmworker had not materially changed since the 1930 's and
that the federally-sponsored Farm Labor Offices were assisting
the grower in his exploitation of the farmworker.
"The Farm Labor Office is a grower- oriented, grower-
dominated and grower-staffed operation. It virtually
-1-
4591
ignores the interest of the farmworker; . . . the farm-
worker v/ould not suffer at all if the Farm Labor Offices
in Calif orniet were terminated. In fact, conditions for
the farmworker would improve if the Farm Labor Offices
were eliminated. The Farm Labor Offices, for example,
knowingly refer workers to growers offering unsafe, un-
sanitary working conditions, and allow unsafe housing
to be considered a part of the pay of the farmworker.
"In fact, the Farm Labor Offices do not even serve the
best interests of many growers. Growers that provide
prevailing wages and good working conditions do not
need the services of the Farm Labor Office and seldom
call upon the Farm Labor Offices.
"The growers that are most dependent upon the Farm
Labor Offices are those growers who offer poor working
conditions and poor wages."
The plight of the migrant farmworker in California, when
confronted by the combination of a - Green Giant Company, a
United Fruit, or a Purex Company (Purex alone grossed $50 mil-
lion from American agricultural interests in 1969) , and assisted
by the 100%- federally-subsidized Farm Labor Service, is best
expressed by 3 Imperial Valley, California, migrant farm-
workers in affidavits filed in a recent federal court action
against Secretary of Labor Shultz (250 Farmworkers v. Shultz,
supra. ) Carmen O stated that:
"On September 2 , 1969 , I and about 35 to 40 other f arm-
workers were hired at the California Farm Labor Office
at Calexico to go and work for the Green Giant Com-
pany in Illinois. They promised that all of us would
be able to work up to ten hours a day at a $1.65 and
some even at $2.00 per hour. . .
"The checks we got were always very little for all the
work we did. . . L Net pay of $32.05 for 89 hours of
work or 36 cents an hour: see attached company wage
receipt, Exhibit 2] They charged us for everything,
like insurance. . . we also had to pay a lot for food
and housing and laundry, since their prices were so high.
-2-
4592
The Farm Labor Office had told us we would make a lot
of money so we could send some home, but there was
nothing left after all the deductions.
"We couldn't come home because we didn't have enough
money after all the deductions, and also because they
said if left we would break the contract and they would
deduct the cost of transportation to Illinois from our
checks. We tried to tell the supervisor they were
breaking their promises, and he answered if we didn't
like it, he would fire us, and we would have to find
a way to come home. We were like slaves.
"We were brought back to Calexico about the thirteenth
of October, and said it wasn't right the Farm Labor
Office did what they do to the people, and they
took advantage of us, but they, [the Farm Labor Office
people J just laughed at us. "
Gumberto V testified that:
"In March or April of 1968, the State Farm Labor Office
in Calexico had a sign posted in its window saying that
Green Giant Company needed men to go to their fields
in Washington State to work cutting asparagus. The
sign said the workers would make from $25 to $30 per
day, and would get a $30 advance to send home to their
families once they arrived. This sounded like good
pay, and my family in Calexico needed money, so I took
the job. I figured that I would send most of the money
that I earned each week home to my family. When we
came back to the Day Haul Center the next morning, a
bus owned by a man from Salinas named A was waiting
to take us to Washington.
"His bus was old and in very poor condition. There were
holes in the floor of the bus and fumes from the exhaust
often bothered us. Once the fumes were so bad that
the bus had to stop so the workers could get some fresh
air, and buy pills for our headache pains. Another
time, outside of Banning, California, the bus broke down
and the workers had to wait on the side of the road
until it was fixed.
"During the whole bus trip we were not given food,
but rather had to buy our own food with our own money. . .
"When we arrived in Washington, we found that the camp was
crowded with people. As our bus from California was
pulling in, other buses were arriving from El Paso,
Texas, and Nogales , Arizona. According to my calcula-
tions, there were at least 500 people in the camp at
-3-
4593
that time. Unfortunately, there was not enough work
for all of us. . .We were allowed to work only two to
three hours per day. Some of us were given no work at
all. Also, they told us after we arrived that we would
not be given [ the promised] $30 in advance, but
would have to wait for at least a week before we would
receive any money at all. . .
"The work prospects were so bad that many people began
leaving the camp. One group of workers tried to get
on a bus, but the bus agency would not sell any tickets
to workers who wanted to ride south. I saw another
group of workers waiting at the railroad tracks to
jump a train heading back to California.
"... after I got back to Calexico, I went to the
State Farm Labor Office to try to find a job. I was
really surprised to see that the State Farm Labor
Office still had its sign posted asking people to go
to work for Green Giant in Washington. I began telling
some of the workers who were standing next to me what
the working conditions really were like up in Washing-
ton with Green Giant. Mr. Eddy A....... an employee
of the Farm Labor Office, came up to me an d told me
to stop saying such things. He began swearing and
shouting at me, and he threatened to send me to jail. "
Migrant farmworker Manuel R :
" [ On August 4, 1967, ] about 200 men and 60 women
were contracted by the State Farm Labor Office in Calex-
ico to go to work in the corn cannery in Glencoge , Minne-
sota, for the Green Giant Company. . . When we arrived
in Minnesota, we were without work for about one week
because there wasn't any corn for canning. . . There
were farmworkers that wanted to return to California in
any manner that they could, but the company refused to
bring them back. . . Sometimes we had to work many hours
in order to have some money left over to send home.
Once I worked thirty-six hours standing, without any
sleep, and there were several people who worked more
hours than I did.
"When I returned to Calexico, California, I went to the
Farm Labor Office and complained about what had happened
to those of us who went up there to v/ork and how we were
abused by the company, but they [the Farm Labor Office"]
didn't pay any attention to me. . . I have now stopped
using the Farm Labor Office because of my bad experience
with them, but every week I hear workers complaining
about how they are treated by the Farm Labor Office."
-4-
4594
A Breakdown jn j,aw anci Order: the California Farm Labor Office
The California Farm Labor Office is the largest and most
heavily subsidized of the Farm Labor Services. (It has 449
employees and received approximately $3.5 million for the fiscal
year 1970, or 15% of the national total.) Under the administra-
tion of Secretary of Labor Wirtz, the Farm Labor Service,
despite its rhetoric, was an ti- farmworker and actively served
to depress wages and working conditions , primarily through the
device of referring a surplus of workers to growers and farm
labor contractors who operated in wholesale violation of the
minimum wage, and health and sanitation laws. Despite the
express desire of Secretary of Labor Shultz to up-grade all
workers, including farmworkers, no changes have been instituted.
Federal regulations , promulgated many Secretaries of Labor ago ,
promised to the farmworker "jobs which utilize their highest
skills." (20 CFR 604.1 (F) )
"Whenever possible, place workers on jobs which use their
highest skills or provide the highest earning potential."
(Calif. Regs., pursuant to 20 CFR 604.1 (K) )
"A domestic unemployed [ farmworker ] is entitled to
the best job we have to offer. . . the best job is that
job which will provide. . . an opportunity to utilize
his highest skill . . . has the highest earning potential
or longest job duration. . . and the most desireable
working conditions." (Calif. Reg. 2159)
The California Farm Labor Office, according to its sta-
tistics, contends that it found jobs for and placed 1.3 million farm-
workers in 1968, and 1.7 million in 1969. Interestingly,
there are only 260,000 famiwozkers , including migrants, in
-5-
4595
California. More interesting, the office's statistics show
a 30% increase in job placements, while actual jobs in agri-
culture decreased by ten percent. The best proof that these
so-called statistics are more air than earth is that in 93%
of the placements, the Farm Labor Office has acknowledged
that it does not know, much less have a record of, the
farmworker's name, or address, or social security card. The
Office also acknowledged that the same unknown worker is
often counted as 250 placements a year — one for each working
day.
The Sonoma [ Wine Country ] Farm Labor Of fa ce is a
typical California Farm Labor Office and is considered by
many to be one of the "best" in California. According to the
Federal Court deposition of its long-time manager, the office
has never been criticized by any of its supervisory personnel,
and, in his words, there is absolutely no room for any improve-
ment. (Deposition, pp. 78-79, 103-105) According to his
federal testimony:
( 1 ) "The primary and major purpose of the Farm Labor
Office is to harvest the crops." (p. 208)
(2) none of his fifteen employees speak any Spanish,
despite 60% of the farmworkers he allegedly places
speaking only Spanish (pp. 21-23) ;
(3) all of his primary staff are growers and they
frequently refer farm workers at undetermined wages to
their own ranches despite those ranches not having
either toilets or drinking facilities as required by
state law (pp. 257-261) ;
-6-
4596
(4) even if 1,000 documented farmworker complaints
were made about a specific grower violating state
■ sanitation laws in regard to toilets and drinking
water, the Farm Labor Office would still- serve the
grower (pp. 135-138) ;
(5) his office has a blacklist of so-called trouble-
some f armworkers , but it is not the function of his
office to record complaints made by farmworkers against
growers (pp. 128-133) ;
(6) even though many workers are not paid the wages
they are promised, the Farm Labor Office will not ver-
ify wages (pp. 60-62) ;
(7) farmworkers can and are knowingly referred to
growers who unlawfully employ illegal aliens [ wetbacks ]
(pp. 191-197) ;
(8) his office refers farmworkers to growers who
disobey state sanitation laws, such as those requiring
toilets and drinking water (pp. 55-56, 191);
(9) despite the harm to 37,500 California farmworkers
caused by excessive use of dangerous pesticides by em-
ployers, no farm labor office requires growers to even
provide a list of pesticides being used (pp. 156-167) ;
(10) the Farm Labor Office has not provided any coun-
selling or any testing to any farmworkers, despite
federal regulations requiring such counselling (pp. 219,
222,223) ;
(11) the office frequently meets with growers (pp. 82,
139-141) , but has never met with any farmworkers or
ever visited any farmworkers (pp. 115-116) ;
(12) all jobs, whether they be for a half-hour or for
two to three months are given the same statistical weight
and the same emphasis by his office and no type of job
is given any preference (p. 171) ;
(13) even though industrial workers are provided with
a full choice of all available jobs by the Department
of Employment, the Farm Labor Office believes that a
farmworker should only be given one job referral,
selected by the staff, even if it means he might travel
fifty miles for a non-existent job (pp. 148-154) .
This "model" Farm Labor Office manager admitted, in effect,
that the statistics used by the Farm Labor Office to bolster
-7-
4597
its contentions that it serves farmworkers are misleading and
phony, if not fraudulent. For example, the manager admitted
that in the typical month of September, 1969, his seasonal
Healdsburg - Sonoma County Farm Labor Office listed 1,073
farmworker referrals, but produced the grand total of four
"regular placements of farm workers." (pp. 236-237)
Most illustrative, the manager admitted that despite
his 1969 statistics showing 30,000 office contacts, and 695
personal field visits to growers, he had developed only
nine jobs in 1969 that were not otherwise available (Dep. ,
Ex 2-13)
A_ Possible Solution: A Farm Worker Bill of Rights
The cost to the nation of operating the Farm Labor Ser-
vices in violation of federal regulations cannot be measured
solely by the $21,000,000 in misused and misdirected taxpayer
funds. In California alone, for the year 1968, the Farm Labor
Offices cost the farm workers $62,800,000 in lost wages due
to their encouragement of growers paying the lowest wages
rather than the federally-required "highest prevailing wage."
On February 20, 1970, thirty farm workers met with Sec-
retary of Labor Shultz in San Francisco, asked him to obey
his own rules and regulations, and presented to him a Farm
Worker Bill of Rights that could help end the unseemly govern-
ment sponsorship and support of "Grapes of Wrath and Harvest
of Shame " conditions. These rights were based on the present
federal regulations (This ten-point Bill of Rights is attached
as Exhibit 3. )
-8-
4598
I hope that when a farmworker is next invited by this
Committee it will be to thank the Secretary of Labor for
obeying his own rules and regulations and for instituting
this Bill of Rights, rights promised by the Wagner-Peyser Act
and guaranteed by specific regulations enunciated as long as
thirty-seven years ago by another Secretary of Labor'.
Thank you.
-9-
4599
EXHIBIT 1
The Grapes of Wrath
"I don' know. Mus' be. Ain't no crop right here now.
Grnpcs to pick later, an' cotton' to pick later. We're a-movin'
on, soon's I get these here valves groun'. Me an' my wife an'
my kids. We heard they was work up north. We're shovin'
north, up aroun' Salinas."
Tom saw Uncle John and Pa and the preacher hoisting the
tarpaulin on the tent poles and Ma on her knees inside, brush-
ing off the mattresses on the ground. A circle of quiet chil-
dren stood to watch the new family get settled, quiet chil-
dren with bare feet and dirty faces. Tom said, "Back home
some fellas come through with han'bills— orange ones. Says
they need lots a people out here to work the crops."
The young man laughed. "They say thcy's three hunderd
thousan' us folks here, an' I'bet ever' dam' fam'ly seen them
han'bills."
"Yeah, but if they don' need folks, what'd they go to the
trouble puttin' them things out for?"
"Use your head, why don'cha?"
"Yeah, but I wanta know."
"Look," the young man said. "S'pose you got a job a work,
an' there's jus' one fella wants the job. You got to pay 'im
what he asts. But s'pose thcy's a hunderd men." He put
down his tool. His eyes hardened and his voice sharpened.
"S'pose thcy's a hunderd men wants that job. S'pose thcin
men got kids, an' them kids is hungry. S'pose a lousy dime'll
buy a box a mush for them kids. S'pose a nickel'll buy at leas'
somepin for them kids. An' you got a hunderd men. Jus' offer
'em a nickel— why, they'll kill each other fightin' for that
nickel. Know what they was payin', las' job I had? Fifteen
cents an hour. Ten hours for a dollar an' a half, an' ya can't
stay on the place. Got to burn gasoline gettin' there." He
W2S panting with anger, and his eyes blazed with hate.
"That's why them han'bills was out. You can print a hell of
a lot of han'bills with what ya save payin' fifteen cents an
hour for fiel' work."
Tom said, "That's stinkin'."
The young man laughed harshly. "You stay out here a
little while, an' if you smell any roses, you come let me smell,
too."
4600
EXHIBIT 2
[DF.CLAUACION DE DKKECIIOS DE CAMPESIHOS]
FARM WORKER KLL OF_ RIGHTS
The famous labor lav/, the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933,
created 10 OS federally- funded Farm Labor Office':; throughout
the nation in order to help farm workers get the best jobs
available. (The State of California, through the Department
of Human Resources Development, operates forty-two Farm Labor
Offices at a cost to the federal government of over three
million dollars a year.) The Farm Labor Offices no longer
help the farm worker. They only help the grower, especially
the grower who off err; bad wages and illegal working conditions.
Thus, the Farm Labor Officer, constitute a federal subsidy to
growers who do the least to protect the health and economic
well-being of their workers.
WHEREFORE, The Farm Workers of Cali fornia , in order to
protect their health and well-being and that of their children,
hereby respectfully demand that the U.S. Labor Department
either close all California Farm Labor Offices or compel the
Farm Labor Offices to operate in accordance with the Wagner-
Peyser Act by adopting the following Ten Point FARM WORKER BILL
OF RIGHTS:
1. Appoint a committee of six to oversee the California
Farm Labor Offices --- the six to consist of two farm workers,
two growers, one church leader, and an ^.".sistant Secretary of
Labor ;
2. Require growers using the Farm Labor Office to submit
a full and complete list of all dangerous pesticides which are
being used, so that if a worker is injured he will be able to
receive immediate and effective medical assistance. [At present
]r>0 of every 1 "DO farm workers arc injured by pesticiees.]
3. Require all growers to guarantee that they will pay
the prevailing wage, rather than the lowest v.'age in the area.
[This would boost California farm worker wages by over fifty
million dollars a year.]
4. Require growers to guarantee, before requesting workers
that they will provide at least twenty hours of work a week
whenever a worker must travel thirty or more miles to and from
work .
5. Require growers to submit a statement in writing that
they will obey state health and safety laws by providing toilets
and drinking water, especially for women and children.
6. Refuse to send -workers to growers who knowingly hire
wetbacks.' and other illegal foreign workers who depress American
workers' wages ond working conditions. [Wetbacks in California
alone earned 131 mi 3. 3 ion do3 3ars last year.]
4601
7. Compel each Farm Labor Office to hire at least one
Spanish-speaking person per office. [Virtually no employees
speak Spanish despite 7CK-. of the farm workers speaking on]y Spanish.]
8. Compel Farm Labor Offices to en-.p3.oy farm workers as
bell as growers. [At most, offices only growers and their families
are employed. ]
9. Prohibit the Farm Labor Office from sending a surplus
of workers to a job.
10. Require the Farm Labor Office to allow workers to see
the entire list of farm jobs available so that they can choose
the best one. [7vt present workers are sent to the growers that
offer the lowest wages and the worst working conditions, .since
these growers have the most difficulty recruiting workers.]
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B --
4602
G?SZ:-'t C;AMT CO.Vy'ANY
ir su:u?. w.inh: ova sV>>5
STATS/.V.NI OP HGUkS EARNINGS
AND DiliUCIlONS
CO
M
m
M
EC
X
w
O C- CD O O r-i
CVi CQ 04 . Ci lO LO
CO
to
4603
250 FARM WORKERS SUE TO COMPEL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PLAN OR TO CLOSE
CALIFORNIA FARM LABOR OFFICE
Today, March 5, 1970, 250 California farm workers from
10 counties, armed with 39 affidavits from farm workers throughout
California, brought suit in Federal District Court at San Francisco
against Secretary of Labor George Shultz and the California Farm
Labor Office.
The suit, a class action brought on behalf of California's
260,000 farm workers, seeks to either close all 42 federally-
funded California Farm Labor Offices or compel them to operate
under a Fair Employment Plan by July 1, 1970. (See Exhibit B of
complaint for Plan) . The Plan requires joint farm worker-grower
control. It prohibits the referring of workers to growers who
refuse to provide toilets and drinking water, the highest prevailing
wages, and a guarantee of 40 hours work.
The suit charges that the Farm Labor Office is "grower-
controlled, grower-dominated, grower-staffed, anti-farm worker
and knowingly refers workers to growers who refuse to obey State
laws" (see Exhibit A, affidavit of former Farm Labor Office employee) .
Plaintiffs allege that the Farm Labor Office's refusal to
obey their own rules and regulations has cost California farm workers
$62,800,000 .a year in lost wages and"California taxpayers
$25,000,000 in unnecessary welfare costs" (paragraph 10 ).
Plaintiffs contend that farm worker wages and working
conditions are depressed by the existence of the Farm Labor Office
since it subsidizes growers who violate minimum health and wage
laws. Further, plaintiffs, contend that the Farm Labor Office uses
phony, inflated employment statistics to bolster its inaccurate claim
of helping farm workers. For example, its statistics show it
producing 10 times as many farm jobs in 1968 as 1966, despite
farm labor employment decreasing by 25% during this period.
CParagraph ll).
California Rural Legal Assistance attorneys term the
proposed Fair Employment Plan America's first FARM WORKER BILL
OF RIGHTS since it guarantees to farm workers the basic rights
presently available to most industrial workers, including the
right to a decent job at a fair wage.
4604
GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO,
YEGHIAYAN, ABASCAL, ALTSHULER,
BRENNAN, DELEVETT, FRETZ ,
LIVINGSTON, MC CABE , POWELL,
WILSON, and YNOSTROZA,
California Rural Legal Assistance
1212 Market Street
San Francisco, California
Telephone: (415) 863-4911
LOUIS GARCIA, ALFONSO GONZALES,
ROBERT E. GONZALES
Mexican-American Political Association
Mexican-American Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
1231 Market Street
San Francisco, California
Telephone: (415) 626-8100
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
250 SANTA CLARA, SONOMA,
STANISLAUS, IMPERIAL, SANTA
BARBARA, SAN LUIS OBISPO,
MADERA, YUBA, SUTTER and BUTTE COUNTY
.FARM WORKERS; SAN BENITO COUNTY
CONSUMERS COOP., INC.; and the
MEXICAN-AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIA-
TION, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated
persons ,
Plaintiffs ,
GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY OF
LABOR; AL NORTON, Regional Director,
Farm Labor & Rural Manpower Service;
LUCIAN B. VANDERGRIFT, Secretary,
State Human Relations Agency; WILLIAM
TOLBERT, Director, California Farm
Labor Service Division; LOUIS BRAUN,
MILTON EISLEY, HARRY FREDERICK, JOSEPH
MIGUEL, RON RODRIQUES , OCTAVIO ARMENTA
WILBUR CHUBBUCK, H. PAT CROW, RICHARD
LEMMON, local California Farm Labor
Office Managers,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS
ACTION FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION OR LABOR RELATI ONS )
JURISDICTION
1. This civil class action for injunctive and declaratory
relief arises under 29 U.S.C. § 49, et seq. (Wagner-Peyser Act
4605
1 I of 1933) and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor promulgated
2\ pursuant to the Act. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question) , § 1337 (Commerce) ,
S 1343 (Civil Rights) , § 1346 (United States Defendant) , § 1361
(Mandamus) , and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Denial of Constitutional Right
Under Color of Law) . The amount in controversy exceeds the sum
of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. A declaration of
rights is sought under the Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C.
SS 2201 - 2202.
CAUSE OF ACTION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2. This class action, pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act
of 1933 (the first major employee bill of rights enacted in the
United States) is brought by over 250 California farm workers
from ten agricultural counties , the Statewide Mexican-
American Political Association and the San Benito Consumers'
'Coop, on behalf of California's 260,000 farm workers. It seeks
to compel the defendants (the United States Labor Department and
the California Farm Labor Services Division) to either enforce
and obey their specific statutory mandate and duty to actively
assist and protect farm workers by instituting a Fair Employment
Plan or to terminate the operation of California's 100% federally-
22 | funded Farm Labor Office as of July 1, 1970, as provided by
23 federal law. (20 C.F.R. § 602.20-22)
24 3. Thirty-seven years ago, Congress enacted the Wagner-
25 Peyser Act in order to provide, inter alia, full and complete
26 protection to all workers including farm workers . As part of
27 I this worker Bill of Rights, Congress created, 29 U.S.C. § 49,
28 1 et seg. , 100% federally-funded, federally-regulated, state-
29 1 administered, Farm Labor Offices:
30 1 "To ensure insofar as practicable that workers are
placed on jobs which utilize their highest skills."
31 | (20 C.F.R. 604.1(f)) ;
32 I —
-2-
4606
1 | "Whenever possible place workers on jobs which use
their highest skills or provide the highest earning
2 potential." (California Farm Labor Management
Manual § 2106(5), pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 604. l(k));
3
"A domestic unemployed [farm worker] is entitled
4 to the best job we have to offer .... The best job
is that job which would provide ... an opportunity
5 to utilize his highest skill . . . Has the highest
earning potential or longest job duration ... The
6 most desirable working conditions ..." (Id, Section
2159(3), emphasis added); and
7
"To make no referral to a position where the services
8 to be performed or the terms or conditions of em-
ployment are contrary to Federal, State, or local
9 law." (20 C.F.R. 604. l(j))
10 4. No federal funds of any kind shall be provided to any
11 State Farm Labor office that fails to "adhere to the basic
12 standards set forth as United States Employment Service policies"
13 [or fails to] "maintain an organization and procedures necessary
14 to carry out effectively such policies." (20 C.F.R. § 603.4,
15 emphasis added)
16 5. In summary, plaintiffs contend that the California Farm
17 Labor Office, in violation of its legally-imposed duty , knowingly
18 refers farm workers to employers who:
19 . a. pay substandard wages substantially below prevailing
20 wages ;
21 b. request twice as many workers as are required in
22 order to further reduce wages;
23 c. offer only an hour's wages a day;
24 d. unlawfully employ illegal aliens (Wetbacks) to
25 compete with local workers;
26 e. refuse to comply with State laws requiring toilets
27 and drinking water; and
28 f» endanger the health of workers by unlawfully using
29 massive doses of toxic pesticides.
30 6. Furthermore, the Farm Labor Office has refused and
31 continues to refuse to provide to workers information as to:
32 a) jobs and the wages available; and b) pesticides used by the
-3-
4607
1 particular employer. This refusal to provide basic employment
2 information is compounded by the lack of an adequate number of
3 Spanish-speaking employees despite 70-80% of the working force
4 speaking Spanish.
5 7. California's federally- funded, three million dollar
6 a year, forty-two office Farm Labor Division has repudiated its
7 specific federal obligations and its own rules and regulations,
8 supra. It is today (in the words of a former Farm Labor Office
9 employee and ex-mayor of an' agricultural community) :
10 "grower-oriented, grower-dominated, and grower-
staffed.
11
"The farm worker would not suffer at all if all the
12 labor offices in California were terminated. In fact,
conditions for the farm worker would improve if the
13 farm labor offices were eliminated. The farm labor
offices, for example, knowingly refer workers to
14 growers offering unsafe, unsanitary working conditions
and allow unsafe housing to be considered a part of
15 the pay of the farm worker.
16 "In fact, the farm labor offices do not even serve
the best interests of many growers. Growers that
17 provide prevailing wages and good working conditions
do not need the services of the farm labor office and
18 seldom call upon the farm labor offices,
19 "The growers that are most dependent upon the farm
labor offices are those growers who offer poor working
20 conditions and poor wages,
21 "In effect, the farm labor offices act as a form of
subsidy to those growers who refuse to compete in the
22 open market place." (Attached hereto, marked Exhibit A
and incorporated by reference herein is the Affidavit
23 of said former Farm Labor Office employee, ex-mayor of
Hollister, and former farm labor contractor.)
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
8. Plaintiffs have specifically set forth, paragraphs 19
to 35 , infra, the defendants' violations of their own rules
and regulations. The operation of the Santa Rosa Farm Labor
Office is typical. It is staffed .exclusively by growers and theii
relatives. Despite 70% of the farm workers speaking Spanish,
none of the employees speak any Spanish. It refuses to provide
workers with a guarantee of even an hour's work. It specifically
refuses to provide workers with the names of toxic pesticides
-4-
4608
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
used by growers in order that. the one in every six workers injure^
each year can receive adequate and effective medical assistance.
It knowingly refers workers to growers who refuse to provide
toilets or drinking water and who unlawfully employ illegal
aliens (Wetbacks) .
9. The effect of these "anti-farm worker" unlawful Farm
Labor Office practices is to "depress the wages and working
conditions" of local workers and to, in effect, "subsidize" and
encourage growers who violate the law. (Affidavit of former
employee, Exhibit A, supra)
10. The aggregate cost to California's taxpayers and farm
workers of the Farm Labor Office's unlawful practices exceeds
one hundred and twenty million dollars a year: Farm workers
annually lose $62,800,000 as a result of the Farm Labor Office
referring them to growers who pay the lowest wages rather than
'the "highest prevailing wage"; California welfare costs for
Farm Labor Office-created underemployed and underpaid farm
workers exceeds $25,000,000 per annum; and medical costs and.
19 lost wages for the 37,500 California farm workers injured by
pesticides each year, upon information and belief, is in excess
of $37,000,000 per annum.
11. The damage caused to farm workers and the extent of
Farm Labor Office responsibility is obscured by fraudulent
California Farm Labor Office statistics that show it producing
and referring five times as many farm jobs as there are farm
workers (1,393,810 alleged placements in 1968 despite the exist-
ence of only 260,000 farm workers) . The 1968 1,393,810 figure
is more than ten times the number of placements that occurred
during the year 1966 when the program was administered by
different directors (134,975 placements in 1966). This alleged
ten-fold increase in so-called farm worker "placements" occurred
32 1 despite an approximate 25% decline in the total number of farm
-5-
4609
worker days employed during 196 8; further, this alleged ten-fold
agricultural increase occurred while nonagricultural placements
decreased by 20% from 1966 to 1968. (California Statistical
Abstract, 1969, at 46)
12. On October 22, 1968, July 9, 1969, December 19, 1969,
and February 19 and 20, 1970, the plaintiffs formally requested
the termination of California Farm Labor Offices and formally
submitted to the named defendants specific information setting
forth the California Farm Labor Office's' fraudulent misuse of
farm worker directed funds for the exclusive benefit of growers
who pay the lowest wages while refusing to provide health, safety
and sanitation conditions in accordance with applicable State
and federal regulations. (Specifically , for example, California
Farm Labor Offices sending workers to employers: a) who provide
no toilets or drinking water, b) spray their fields with toxic
pesticides that the California Department of Public Health
contends is responsible for at least 37,500 California farm
worker injuries each year, and c) refuse to guarantee one hour's
work even where a worker travels 100 miles to the job.
13. On each and every occasion, including a personal farm
worker San Francisco meeting with Secretary of Labor George
Shultz on February 20, 1970, the defendants specifically refused
to investigate these charges or compel adherence to their own
rules and regulations and statutory mandate requiring that farm
workers be provided with jobs that "utilize their highest skills
or provide the highest earning potential" and that no worker be
referred "to a position where the ... conditions of employment
are contrary to Federal, State, or local law" or fails to provide
"the most desirable working conditions."
14. As a result of the defendants' specific refusal to
comply with their statutory obligations and resultant danger
to farm worker safety, health and economic well-being, the
-6-
4610
plaintiffs seek the termination of federal funding for California'
Farm Labor Office, or that a Fair Employment Plan be
created to oversee said Office, under the joint, cooperative
control of- growers, farm workers and Labor Department representa-
tives, in order to ensure that applicable rules and regulations
are effectively enforced. The Fair Employment Plan is attached
hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked Exhibit B.
The Plan sets forth three main provisions, all in accordance with
present federal and state regulations. It seeks to ensure that
farm workers secure the "best jobs" that "utilize their highest
skills or provide the highest earning potential" are not in
violation of any "Federal, State or local law", and provide "the
most desirable working conditions." (20 C.F.R. 604.1)
DEFENDANTS
15. Defendant George Shultz is Secretary of the United
States Department of Labor and in said capacity he is responsible
for the funding and administration of the California Farm Labor
Offices. Defendant Al Norton is Regional Director of the U.S. Farn
Labor and Rural Manpower Service. Defendant Lucian B. Vandergrift
is the Secretary of the State Human Relations Agency, and in said
capacity has administrative control over California Farm Labor
Offices. Defendant William Tolbert is the Director of the Farm
Labor Service Division. Defendants Louis Braun, Milton Eisley,
Harry Frederick, Joseph Miguel, Ron Rodriques, Octavio Armenta
Wilbur Chubbuck, H. Pat Crow, Richard Lemmon are local Farm Labor
Office managers.
PLAINTIFFS
16. Plaintiff San Benito County Consumers' Cooperative,
Inc. , is a non-profit corporation of approximately 100 low-income
farm workers from San Benito County many of whom use or have used
local farm labor offices. (Attached hereto, marked Exhibit C,
incorporated by reference herein, is an affidavit from the
-7-
4611
President of said corporation setting forth the unanimous vote
of the membership on February 9, 1970, to close the Farm Labor
Offices. )
17. Plaintiff 250 California farm workers are farm workers
from ten California counties (Santa Clara, Sonoma, Stanislaus,
Imperial, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Madera, Yuba, Sutter,
and Butte Counties) requesting the termination of Farm Labor
Offices due to their depressing wages and working conditions.
(Attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, marked
Exhibit D, in a sealed envelope for the court only, are the
originals of petitions signed by said workers, most of whom fear
for the loss of their jobs should their names be disclosed.
(In order to protect their identity they are referred to as "250
California Farm Workers.")
18. Plaintiff Mexican-American Political Association is
'California's largest Mexican-American organization and represents
the interests of farm workers in general, 75 to 85% of whom are
Mexican-Americans .
STATEMENT OF FACTS
19. California's 42 Farm Labor Offices are fully-funded
by the U.S. Labor Department. Affidavits have been secured from
some fifteen counties setting out the unlawful practices of the
Farm Labor Offices. The affidavits (Exhibits E-AM) attached
to the Order to Show Cause, are hereby fully incorporated by
reference herein. Their substance is specifically set out in
the following paragraphs.
20. SANTA CLARA, SAN BENITO, SANTA CRUZ; The Farm Labor
Offices in these counties, as in most of California, "virtually
ignore the interests of the farm worker, and, on any occasion
where the two interests must be balanced, will balance the
interests in favor of the grower." (Affidavit of Frank Valenzuela
Exhibit A) The affidavit of Robert Guerrero, marked Exhibit E,
-8-
4612
is typical of the results of this unfair balance. After one job
he was referred to in Hollister he complained to the Farm Labor
Office about the grower. The clerk replied that they "had lots
of trouble, with that particular [employer] and that they had to
refer many people to him because so many quit or were fired. The
clerk said nothing about discontinuing service to the grower. I
think that this is because the Farm Labor Office does not care
what the grower is like. They send farm workers no matter what."
21. MONTEREY COUNTY (SALINAS VALLEY) : The Salinas Farm
Labor Office Day Haul center is infamous among farm workers.
It is, according to so-called Farm Labor Office statistics for
196_8, responsible for over 100,000 farm worker placements each
year, or a sum almost equal to the total number of California
farm worker placements in 196_6.. On a typical day, 1,000 workers
gather at this fenced-in Farm Labor Office-operated area, known
as "El Corral" [Bull-pen] by the workers.
22. The very facilities operated by the Salinas Farm Labor
Offices refute and belie its own rules, to provide "The most
desirable working conditions." Despite complaints from farm
workers sine*1 1967, and a lawsuit, it still refuses to provide
drinking water or benches or heat to the more than 1,000 male and
female farm workers who gather at 3 a.m. and often wait three
hours to secure a half -day's employment. Only Farm Labor Office
personnel stationed on the premises, in an area marked "Employees
Only," have access to such amenities. (Attached to the Order to
Show Cause is a Declaration admitted in a lawsuit Munoz v. State
Department of Employment, decision for the farm worker, July,
1969, marked Exhibit H)
23. The extent of the Salinas Farm Labor Office's role in
depressing working conditions is illustrated by the 1968 survey
of 107 farm workers admitted into evidence in Munoz , supra.
It showed that every Farm Labor Office referral was to a grower
-9-
4613
who violated State law by refusing to provide toilets or drinking
water (1,869 violations in one-year period from 107 workers).
(Attached to the Order to Show Cause is a Declaration admitted into
evidence in Munoz , supra, marked Exhibit I)
24 . IMPERIAL COUNTY: The Calexico Farm Labor Office
facilities are reputed to be the most impressive in the Nation,
offering both toilets and drinking water to its workers. On a
typical 3 a.m. , three thousand men gather for two thousand jobs.
Most --•75% according to January, 1970, Calexico survey by Roy
Armenta--are not even American residents. According to this
January 1970 survey of 12 5 farm workers:
A. 85% have been referred by the Farm Labor Office to
growers who provide less than a day's work;
B. 95% were sent to employers who unlawfully refused to
provide toilets or drinking water;
C. 71% were sent to employers who treated them unfairly or
discourteously;
D. None of the 125 workers ever received any job assistance
or counseling from the Farm Labor Office or observed any Farm
Labor Office employee ever investigate wage or working conditions;
E. Only 3% of the workers felt that the Farm Labor Office
was trying to assist them. (Affidavit of Roy Armenta, with
survey, attached to Order to Show Cause and marked Exhibit J)
25. The Farm Labor Office's indifference to the exploitation
of the farm worker is evidenced by its referral of Carmen Padilla
Olguin to "Green Giant" Company in Illinois on September 2, 1969.
As an inducement to travel 2,000 miles, Olguin, and forty other
Calexico workers were promised by the Farm Labor Office $16.50
minimum per day. During the first full two weeks of work,
working 89 hours, he received, after deductions, $32.05 or thirty
six cents an hour. As a result he became a virtual prisoner in
Illinois unable to afford transportation home. When the forty
-10-
4614
1 workers finally returned to Calexico six weeks later and
2 formally complained to the Farm Labor Office, "They just laughed
3 at us." Affidavits of Gilberto Valenzuela and Manuel Ramos
4 confirm and allege similar exploitation by the Farm Labor Office
5 and "Green Giant" Company in Washington State and Minnesota.
6 (Affidavits, including "Green Giant" wage statement, attached to
7 Order to Show Cause, and marked Exhibits K, L, and M)
8 26. SONOMA AND NAPA COUNTIES: On February 11, 1970, a
9 delegation of farm workers met with the office managers and area
10 supervisor of the Farm Labor Offices in Santa Rosa, California,
11 to request compliance with field and sanitation laws. The Farm
12 Labor officials admitted that they do not ask employers about
13 working conditions prior to making referrals nor do they check
14 the field conditions for compliance with the law. When asked by
15 farm workers as to what the officials thought was the function of
16 the Farm Labor Office they replied: "...our main objective is to
17 facilitate the harvesting of the crops." (Affidavit of Emilia
18 Telles - Exhibit N)
19 The inefficient operation of the Farm Labor Offices is
20 best exemplified by the affidavit of Vartkes Yeghiayan; this
21 affidavit contains the following statement made by Mr. Donald
22 Mills, Manager for the Sonoma County Farm Labor Association (a
23 private, grower-owned association) :
24 "if the Sonoma County Farm Labor Offices were doing
their job properly, there would be no need for the
25 Association to exist. Why would growers form their
own association and tax themselves but for the fact
26 that the Farm Labor Office was being run very
inefficiently... If I were given this money
27 ($200,000 to run the Sonoma County Farm Labor Office]
I would serve the farm workers on a silver platter
28 and every farm worker in Sonoma County would have a
job and I would send them to work in a limousine."
29
30
31
32
27. MADERA COUNTY: Three affidavits, Exhibits U, V, and
W, are typical of the complaints received about the operation of
the Madera Farm Labor Office. Workers are referred to farms
-11-
4615
which provide no toilets, handwashing facilities or drinking
water. Workers are referred to non-existent jobs or are referred
to growers who did not ask for the services of the Farm Labor
Office. Domingo Valdez , for example, in his affidavit, marked
U, stated that he was referred to a grower who told him that the
work was finished and that he had not asked the Farm Labor Office
for any help.
28. KINGS COUNTY: Affidavits from Kings County, marked
Exhibits X and Y, demonstrate the indifference to farm workers
displayed by the Farm Labor Office. Farm workers there were
sent on a round trip 125 miles to an alleged job only to find
that there was no. work available. On the next day the Farm Labor
Office insisted that they return to the same job. The second day
the workers received only a half -day of work and then were paid
only 20 cents a bucket instead of the 25 cents promised. The
.Farm Labor Office took no action to secure any money for the
first day or the difference in the promised wage on the second
day. A check back five days later showed that the Farm Labor
Office was continuing to refer workers to this employer and still
promising that 25 cents a bucket would be paid.
29. The Farm Labor Office serving the largest poverty county
in the United States sent 36 workers on a bus for five hours to a
job. They were in fact not taken to any employer at all, but
to a contractor of farm labor services. The place they were
taken to already had workers there who had had no work for
several days. In spite of promises that they would be paid $1.65
an hour and be given 6 days of work a week, only three hours of
work was provided (in a different crop than that advertised) .
The workers were then told there "may be work tomorrow or maybe
in a few days." The workers did not earn enough to pay bus fare
home. (Declaration of Michael Onofrey, Exhibit Z, Los Angeles
County)
-12-
4616
1 30. STANISLAUS COUNTY: Five affidavits, marked Exhibits
2 AA-AE, are typical of complaints received about the Operation of
3 the Stanislaus Farm Labor Service. The workers were all referred
4 to extremely low paying jobs, far below minimum wage, and were
5 referred to farms which provided no toilets, handwashing
6 facilities, or drinking water. Don Alafa, for example, in his
7 affidavit, stated that he was sent to an apricot field where the
8 piece rate wage was only the equivalent of 35 cents an hour.
9 31. BUTTE, YUBA & SUTTER COUNTIES;' The operation of the
10 Farm Labor Offices in Butte, Yuba and Sutter have been the
11 subject of substantial farm worker litigation (In re Botelho ,
12 incorporated as exhibit in Munoz v. State Department of Employ-
13 ment) and complaints. Over 99% of the agricultural employers,
14 according to a 1968 survey of 150 employers and 100 workers
15 incorporated in Munoz , supra, committed over 1,200 health,
16 sanitation and minimum wage violations. Despite said widespread
17 violations, the Farm Labor Office as of mid-February, 1970, still
18 refused to terminate referrals to said growers and continued to
19 compel workers to travel as much as one hundred miles to one
20 grower even though neither wages nor working conditions were
21 guaranteed. (Attached to the Order to Show Cause, and marked
22 Exhibit AF, is an affidavit by Edgar Diaz.)
23 32. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY: On Thursday, February 19, 1970,
24 a delegation of farm workers met with Office Manager and Area
25 Supervisor of the Farm Labor Office in Santa Maria, California,
26 to request compliance with federal and state law. The Farm Labor
27 Office officials "admitted that they do not ask employers about
28 working conditions when employers call in with job openings, and
29 the Farm Labor Service does not make field checks for compliance
30 with the law. We asked why the Farm Labor Service does not check
31 for compliance, and Mr. Spencer said, 'If we did this they'd
32 chop our heads off.' We asked who would and he said, 'The
-13-
4617
growers and the powers above us.'" (Affidavit of Israel Torres,
makred Exhibit AG)
33. PESTICIDES: On December 10, 1969, the defendant Human
Relations Agency, Department of Public Health, issued a compre-
hensive, legislatively-ordered report on pesticide danger to farm
workers. It reported that at least 150 of every 1,000 farm
workers, or 37,500 Statewide, are adversely affected, including
death, hospitalization and loss of work, by excessive, uncon-
trolled use of pesticides of unknown toxicity. The report
stated:
"First, a large percentage of pesticide-related
injuries involve serious, disabling illness;
secondly, like other kinds of work-related
illnesses, pesticide poisoning is largely pre-
ventable and; thirdly, we have reason to believe
that the reports of illness which we receive do
not accurately reflect the true magnitude of
the problem..." (at p'. 4)
"During this same period, the accidental deaths
of 32 other adults [plus 34 previously mentioned
as resulting from occupational fatalities due
to agricultural chemicals] and 85 children were
attributed to pesticides and other agricultural
chemicals, making a total of 151 accidental
deaths." (at p. 2)
34. In order to protect the health and safety of California
farm workers? plaintiffs, in accordance with applicable State and
federal regulations (20 C.F.R. § 604.1 and § 604.5), formally
requested of Farm Labor Offices from Imperial, Santa Clara and
Sonoma, protection from uncontrolled and unknown use of
dangerous pesticides. Each office, in accordance with federal
regulations, was requested to condition job referrals upon
employers providing, lists of pesticides used. The purpose was
to expedite medical treatment for injured workers (one of every
six injured each year according to defendants' study of
December 10, 1969). Defendants have refused to do so or to make
any effort of any kind to facilitate medical assistance to
injured farm workers. (Attached to the Order to Show Cause,
-14-
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 7
4618
1 incorporated by reference herein, and marked Exhibits AK, AL,
2 and AM, are copies of unanswered letters written to said Farm
3 Labor Offices.)
4 35. UNEQUAL TREATMENT; On information and belief,
5 although California Farm Labor Offices refuse to bar growers from
6 using their services, no matter how flagrant or frequent are the
7 unlawful violations of regulations by such growers, the Farm
8 Labor Offices move quickly to refuse to refer, i.e., blacklist,
9 any farm worker who has violated any regulation. For example,
10 workers who fail to appear for jobs are often refused additional
11 referrals; growers, on the other hand, who request three times as
12 many workers as they need, or provide only an hour's work for
13 0 workers traveling 100 miles, are encouraged to continue to use
14 | the Farm Labor Office referral -facilities despite their unlawful
15 A activities.
16 A VIOLATION OF LEGAL DUTY
17 H 36. Defendants have willfully, arbitrarily and capriciously
18 | failed in their clear duty to comply with the Congressional
19 1 mandate to protect the health and economic well-being of the farm
201 worker. Further, defendants have wilfully, arbitrarily and
21 | capriciously violated their binding and unequivocal rules to
22 provide: a) "The most desirable working conditions," '::>) "To
23 ensure insofar as practicable that workers are placed on jobs
24 which utilize their highest skills," c) "To make no referral to
25 a position where the . . . conditions of employment are contrary to
26 Federal, State, or local law," and d) "Whenever possible place
27 workers on jobs which ... provide the highest earning potential."
28 37. Said arbitrary and unlawful actions of the defendants
29 have resulted in discrimination against the poor, particularly
30 minority groups who constitute 86% of the farm workers referred
31 by the State Farm Labor Office. Said discrimination constitutes
32 a denial of due process and equal protection in violation of the
-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4619
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States .
CLASS ACTION
38. This is a proper class action within Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The named plaintiffs represent
the class of farm workers in California who are denied the bene-
fits of the Wagner-Peyser Act due to the defendants* refusal to
comply with said Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
The members of the aforementioned classes are so numerous that_
their joinder is impracticable. Nonetheless, members of the
class have common interests in the questions- of law and fact to
be litigated herein. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of
the class, and litigation by them will fairly and adequately
protect the interest of the class. The legislation of which
plaintiffs complain is generally and equally applicable and
.applied to every member of the class, making relief as to all
appropriate.
CONTROVERSY
39. There is an actual controversy now existing between
parties to this action as to which plaintiffs seek the judgment
of this court. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of the legal rights
and relationships involved in the subject and controversy.
40. Plaintiffs, and the class they represent, have incomes
substantially below the minimum needed for even a subsistence
level of existence. They will suffer irreparable injury and
severe economic deprivation by reason of the continued unlawful
conduct of the defendants.
41. Plaintiffs, and the class they represent, have no plain
adequate or speedy remedy at law to redress such injury and
deprivation and therefore bring this suit for declaratory and
injunctive relief as their only means of securing such relief.
16-
4620
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, pray that this court:
A. Temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoin
defendants from refusing to require that employers using the
Farm Labor Office services provide a description of use of
pesticides in fields to which workers are to be sent;
B. Preliminarily enjoin defendants from refusing to imple-
ment the Fair Employment Plan For Operation of California Farm
Labor Offices set out in Exhibit B, attached to this complaint,'
and hereby incorporated by reference herein;
C. Permanently enjoin defendants from refusing to either
continue the Fair Employment Plan set out in Exhibit B beyond
two years, implement some other similar plan to affirmatively
guarantee that farm workers will.be referred to the best jobs
available at the highest wages and best lawful working conditions
for a fixed minimum number of days of work, or, in the alternative
terminate all federal funding to the California Farm Labor Offices
D. Permanently enjoin the defendants from treating as a job
placement any referral which results in a job of less than one
week's duration at the highest prevailing wage;
E. Declare that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated
are by virtue of the applicable statutes and regulations entitled
to be referred only:
1) to jobs that meet applicable health, sanitation,
and safety standards as determined by Farm Labor
Office procedures and spot checks,
2) to jobs providing a fair minimum of guaranteed
hours of work at the highest prevailing wage,
3) to jobs chosen by the farm worker from lists
of all available jobs.
F. Maintain jurisdiction of this matter;
-17-
4621
G. Allow plaintiffs their costs and grant them and others
similarly situated such relief as the court may deem just and
appropriate.
Dated: March 5, 1970.
GARCIA, A. GONZALES, R. GONZALES,
• GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO, YEGHIAYAN,
ABASCAL, ALTSHULER, BRENNAN , DELEVETT,
FRETZ, LIVINGSTON, MC CABE , POWELL,
WILSON and YNOSTROZA
By • JWb,jAjW
ROBERT L. GNAIZDA
Qf\)\ouk ft. )%^
MARTIN R. GLICK
VARTKES YEGTpAVAN
•18-
4622
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, am one of the attorneys for the plain-
tiffs in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing
Individual and Class Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
and know the content thereof; and that the same is true of my own
knowledge except as to the matters which are therein stated upon
information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to
be true.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is.
true and correct.
Executed on March 4, 1970, at San Francisco, California.
fo\^A/w
ROBERT L. GNAIZDA
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4623
EXHIBIT A
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
I, FRANK VALENZUELA, being first duly sworn, depose
and say:
I, Frank Valenzuela, am presently Acting Director of
the Community Organization Department of the Economic Opportunity
Commission of Santa Clara County and reside in Santa Clara
County and have continuous official contact with the California
Farm Labor Offices.
I am the former Mayor of Hollister, San Benito County
and a former farm labor contractor.
During the years 1966 - 1967 I was employed by the
federally- funded California Farm Labor Office. I worked in the
Santa Clara, Imperial, and Santa Cruz County Offices- and also
have familiarity with the offices in Monterey and San Benito
Counties .
In my opinion, based upon my experiences with the Farm
Labor Office, it is a grower-oriented, grower-dominated and
grower-staffed operation. It virtually ignores the interests
of the farm worker; and on any occasion where the two interests
must be balance3, it will balance the interests in the favor
of the grower.
The farm worker would not suffer at all if all the farm
labor offices in California were terminated. In fact, conditions
for the farm worker would improve if the farm labor offices
were eliminated. The farm labor offices, for example, knowingly
refer workers to growers offering unsafe, unsanitary working
conditions and allow unsafe housing to be considered a part of
the pay of the farm worker.
In fact, the farm labor offices do not even serve the
best interests of many growers. Growers that provide prevailing
wages and good working conditions do not need the services of
4624
the farm labor office and seldom call upon the farm labor offices .
The growers that are most dependent upon the farm labor
offices are those growers who offer poor working conditions and
poor wages.
In effect, the farm labor offices act as a form of
subsidy to those growers who refuse to compete in the open market
place.
An example of this occurred in the Gilroy Farm Labor
Office. The appropriation for the farm labor office is in part
dependent upon the number of so-called "hires" that an office
secures over a period of a year. On one occasion, for example,
an apricot grower offered piece rates that were so low that
none of the workers referred could earn even the minimum wage.
The grower informed the farm labor office on each day for
approximately ten working days that he needed approximately ten-
workers. However, because of the extremely low wages, workers
refused to work more than one day and therefore new ones were
sent out each day. As a result, over a ten day working period
the Gilroy Farm Labor Office recorded in excess of 100 "hires."
Thus, in a sense the farm labor office is best served,
from its point of view, by assisting the worst growers since
these growers will provide them with the best statistics based
on the highest turnover of workers .
Farm labor offices have, at least over the last ten
years, primarily assisted those growers who violate the law
and offer the worst wages. For example, the Gilroy Farm Labor
Office on one occasion received a job order from an employer
to pay twenty cents a bucket for grapes. The grower, however,
when the workers appeared, refused to pay twenty cents a
bucket and offered only sixteen cents a bucket, a price below
the prevailing wage in the area at the time. The Farm Labor
4625
Office was informed about this and said that it was acceptable
for the grower to do so since the grower offered the excuse
that although he said he would pay twenty cents a bucket, it
only pertained to one field and not to the other fields in which
grapes were being picked.
The grower dominance of the farm labor offices is best
expressed and illustrated by the staffing pattern at the farm
labor offices. It hires primarily growers and attempts to
screen out pro-labor persons and bilingual persons who might
assist the Mexican-American farm worker. 'For example, despite
the fact that I was a farm labor contractor, a former Mayor
of Hollister, fully bilingual, had two years of college, had
been a probation officer and law enforcement officer, my
application for employment was refused based upon my reputation
of being pro-farm worker. However, as soon as I filed a
written complaint with then State Senator Farr, I was informed
within twenty-four hours by Mr. Jack Rocca, a coastal area
supervisor then and now, that a vacancy had just occurred and
I therefore received the job.
Whenever vacancies occur in farm labor offices , local
growers play a major role in determining who shall be selected.
For this reason, the farm labor office is often referred to as
just another arm of the Farm Bureau which works to the disadvantage
of the farm worker.
I have set forth below a few of the examples showing
the indifference of the farm labor office to the farm worker.
1. Watsonville Farm Labor Office: The Division of
Industrial Welfare began to check the social security numbers
of workers employed by growers since it was known that large
numbers of growers were hiring entire families unlawfully on
one social security card. The growers immediately complained
to the local farm labor office which, without any authority,
4626
demanded that the Division of~mdustrial Welfare "lay off"
the growers since it would be putting an unfair burden on the
growers to have to comply with the social security laws.
2. The farm Labor offices are aware that many growers
in the Gilroy-Hollister-Santa Cruz area employ entire families
on one card and yet it continues to refer workers to these
growers .
3. The farm labor office has made it a policy over the
years through radio, TV announcements, and various news
releases to recruit hundreds of workers for a small number of
jobs. In other words, the farm labor office engages in over
advertising and produces results that compare to those in The
Grapes of Wrath when thousands of workers drove hundreds of
miles for a small number of jobs and were therefore forced to
compete with each other thereby lowering wages for all.
4. The farm labor office, frequently engages in
intensive recruitment of families for jobs that only last one
day and in which far more families apply than for which there
are jobs.
5. The farm labor office knowingly refers workers to
growers who fail to provide toilet facilities, drinking water,
or other sanitary conditions required by state law.
6. On many occasions, I've seen farm workers come to
the farm labor office and complain that the wages they were
provided with by the grower were substantially lower than the
job order the farm labor office accepted. On each occasion the
farm labor office has summarily and perfunctorily informed the
farm worker that he should leave the office and stop complaining
since the farm labor office is not a law enforcement agency.
The farm labor office personnel even refused to secure any in-
formation that might be of assistance to the farm worker in
securing his wages through the labor commissioner.
4627
7. Although many growers use extensive amounts of
pesticides which on some occasions at least, are harmful to the
farm workers, the farm labor office has never concerned itself
in any fashion with the use of pesticides by growers.
8. At present, the Gilroy Office of the Farm Labor Office
is engaging in an assistance program to growers in cooperation
with the federal government that will adversely affect each
and every local farm workers' job opportunities this coming year
despite the fact that there is a present shortage of work for
farm workers and most farm workers have suffered a reduction in -
both wages and hours worked over the last three years.
9. Since I left the farm labor office, I have had
continuous contact with the local farm labor offices in Santa
Clara County. There have been no substantial changes in the
farm labor office that have benefited the farm worker. In fact,
the situation for the farm worker has worsened since the farm
labor office was recently given independence from the State De-
partment of Employment.
10. In summary, the farm labor offices are presently
operating in a fashion designed to depress wages and working
conditions, and .weaken the bargaining power of local farm workers.
This anti-farm worker policy was first developed under the Bracero
Program where the farm labor offices would encourage the im-
portation of braceros, while local workers were going without
jobs, in order to make certain that wages remained at an
artificially low rate.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed on Q& I / > "70, at San Jose .California.
v<=^ FRANK VALENZUELA —\
Subscribed and sworn to before mfe this// T" "day of ^ ^-"* SvJL970.
SARAH A. MARTINEZ ■ / v„ "' < VtW PUBLIC
NOTARY PLiBLIC-O-.Urv-.'.J.A /
V
OFFICIAL SEAL ■ / / . / . U Yl \
daui MARTINEZ /■•._''' ' n.A1--.. _. ae ,
~>'\','-) SANTA CLWA C')J .Y
^C.-y Kyi a nnvss:on tt?;r<;s ?eb. i3. IS72
S<J0 WjinftKsM 0'-. San lo;o, Jl'"'. P\M
4628
EXHIBIT B
1 I! FAIR- EMPLOYMENT PLAN FOR OPERATION OF CALIFORNIA
2 I FARM LABOR OFFICES PURSUANT TO WAGNER-PEYSER ACT
OF 1933 AND REGULATIONS RELATED THERETO
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
ORDER
Commencing July 1, 1970, no federal funds shall be
appropriated by the federal defendants, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §49,
et seq. , for the operation of California Farm Labor Offices until
the defendants shall develop and institute a full and complete af-
finitive action plan to protect the health, safety, and economic
well-being of California farmworkers in accordance with 29 U.S.C.
§49, et seq. , and regulations related thereto. Said affirmative
action plan shall include no less than the following protections
for farm workers :
1. A Committee of Five composed of two farm workers,
two growers, and a U. S. Labor Department representative shall
oversee and examine the operation of the California Farm Labor
Office for a period of not less than two years and each local Farm
Labor Office shall have at least 50% representation from the farm
worker community on its advisory staff. (Pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§604.12 which guarantees representation to farm worker and other
community organizations.)
2. No employer shall be permitted to use the services
of the Farm Labor Office:
a. unless said person is in fact a direct
employer of labor and no farm labor contractors or other private
employment agencies that secure a fee either from the employee or
employer shall be permitted to directly or indirectly use said
farm labor office services (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604.1 (f) and
(k) , which guarantees workers the best job available at the
highest prevailing wage) ;
b. until said employer shall file with the Farm
4629
Labor Office a certification under penalty of perjury that he is
fully aware of applicable federal, State and local farm worker
health, sanitation and safety laws and is in full and complete
compliance with said laws; (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§604 .1 ( j ) and
604.5 protecting farm workers from violations of any federal,
State or local laws) ;
c. unless said employer shall file a current
certification under penalty of perjury (simultaneously with the
filing of each job order) setting forth a full and complete „
description of all pesticides being used, the quantity per acre
and a certification that local health officials consider his
fields free of any pesticide danger to workers; (pursuant to
20 C.F.R. §§604. l(j) and 604.5);
d. unless said employer shall guarantee in writing
a job of at least 40 hours duration during the ensuing seven day
period at the highest prevailing wage paid for comparable employ-
ment (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604. l(k) and State Farm Labor Office
Regulation §2106(5) providing for jobs at "the highest earning
potential") .
3. Each local California Farm Labor Office shall be
prohibited from operating or servicing any employers until it
shall institute a regular policy and procedure, pursuant to 20
C.F.R. §604. 1(f) , (j) and (k) , whereby:
a. at least 10% of all employer job order
specifications each month shall be personally investigated
(pursuant to State Farm Labor Office Regulation §§2104, 2106(10),
2139(3), 2139(4), and 2140 requiring personal investigations and
familiarity with agricultural conditions by Farm Labor Office
personnel) ;
b. a full and complete list, in Spanish and
English of all available jobs, including specifications as to
wages, period of guaranteed employment, and working conditions,
-2-
4630
1 including pesticides used, shall be publicly posted at each Farm
2 Labor Office (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604. 1(f), (k) and State
3 Farm Labor Office Regulation &2172) ;
4 c. Day Haul Centers operated directly or indirectly
5 by Farm Labor Offices shall be prohibited from servicing any per-
6 sons that are not in full compliance with paragraph 2, supra; and
7 wages for employees secured through said Day Haul Centers shall
8 be computed from time of entrance on the bus to time of return to
9 Day Haul Center (pursuant to- 20 C.F.R. §604.1 (f) , (j) and (k) and.
10 State Farm Labor Office Regulations §§2159(3) and 2153);
j j d. employers who have been found within six months
12 of a job order to have violated applicable federal, State or
13 local health, labor, or safety laws shall be prohibited from
14 directly or indirectly using or benefiting from any Farm Labor
15 Office services (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §604. l(j) and State Farm
16 Labor Office Regulations §§2153, 2160(6) and 2160(7) empowering
17 local Farm Labor Offices to restrict their services only to those
18 in full compliance with federal, State and local laws);
19 e. new employment policies shall be devised,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
effective immediately, to increase the employment of farm workers
and Spanish-speaking personnel at the local Farm Labor Offices in
order to more fully and adequately advise and counsel workers as
to the best available jobs (pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 604.1(f),
(j) and (k) , 604.12, 604.8(h) and State Farm Labor Office
Regulation §2159) .
-3-
4631
EXHIBIT C
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN BENITO )
I, JUAN ZAMORA, being first duly sworn depose and say :
I am the president of the San Benito County Consumers' Corporation. This
corporation has approximately two hundred members. At a general membership
meeting on February 9th, 1970 we discussed the concern of the corporation in
obtaining decent wages and good working conditions for farm laborers. We
decided that the farm labor office has failed to help farm laborers find such
decent wages and working conditions. A vote was taken regarding the member-
ships' interest in bringing a law suit to close the farm labor office because
of its failure to serve farm workers. Seventy-five members voted in favor of
the proposed law suit, no member voted against the law suit, ten members
abstained.' Therefore, it is the feeling of the San Benito County Consumers'
Corporation that the exploitation of farm workers with the assistance of the
farm labor office should cease immediately.
/st>f*-siCsS*rl ■>—
SUSBCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS // ^ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1970
HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA
(iit/kt.t^L?C/<tJ_ A/JJu/a-'C/
NOTARY PUBLIC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4632
GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYMOSO,
YEGHIAYAN, ABASCAL, ALTSHULER,
BRENNAN, DELEVETT, FRETZ,
LIVINGSTON, MC CABE, POWELL,
WILSON, AND YNOSTROZA,
California Rural Legal Assistance
1212 Market Street
San Francisco, California CLE"' r
Telephone: (415) 863-4911
LOUIS GARCIA, ALFONSO GONZALES,
ROBERT E. GONZALES
Mexican-American Political Association
Mexican-American Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
1231 Market Street
San Francisco, California '
Telephone: (415) 626-8100
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
250 SANTA CLARA, SONOMA, -^i ^. ^ . _
STANISLAUS, IMPERIAL, SANTA
BARBARA, SAN LUIS OBISPO,
MADERA, YUBA, SUTTER and BUTTE
COUNTY FARM WORKERS; ET AL. ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY
OF LABOR; ET AL. ,
„ Defendants.
3 1
CIVIL ACTION NO.
PLAINTIFFS' POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
I.
JURISDICTIONAL
Farm workers recently brought suit against the federally-
funded Florida State Farm Labor Offices pursuant to the very
employment section of the Wagner-Peyser Act involved herein.
Gomez v. Florida State Employment Service. 417 F . 2d 569 (5th
Cir., 1969). Gomez and other farm workers alleged that they were
deprived by State employment service officials of wages and
working condition benefits promised by the act and regulations.
The Fifth Circuit unanimously held that the court had juris-
diction, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §49, et seg_. , 42 U.S.c'. §1337,
4633
42 U.S.C. §1343 and 42 U.S.C. §1983, the jurisdictional sections
presented herein.
Moreover, the court held that the complaint against the
State Farm Labor Office stated a claim for which relief could
readily be granted.
"We start with the proposition that there can be
no doubt that the regulations of the Secretary of
Labor were intended to 'protect the interests of
the workers. The conditions were deplorable....
There were no standards. The Secretary was concerned
about preventing the use of the federal resources
to help prolong these conditions and to subvert
other efforts to improve the conditions of the
workers. In words attributable to the Secretary
of Labor, the regulations were said to be designed
to prevent 'the public employment service from
being utilized to send workers over long distances
to employment providing quarters dangerous to their
health and safety.' ... The Secretary's concern
with workers, their wages, living and transporta-
tion conditions as being at the heart of the Secre-
tary's purpose in promulgating more effective
standards as attested by the attorney general's
paraphrase:" (at 575, emphasis added.)
■ "Thus from the legislative history and from
the regulations themselves it is plain that they
were intended to confer an interest upon migrant
farm workers such as plaintiffs here." (at 575)
II.
RELIEF
The legal remedies sought by the plaintiffs, either the
cutting off of federal funds to the California Farm Labor Office
or compelling it to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations
were discussed in Gomez , and the court held that both remedies
are readily available:
"It is unthinking that Congress, obviously
concerned with people, would have left the
Secretary with only the sanction of cutting off
funds to the state . . . Congress more and more
commits to individuals, acting as a private
attorney general, the effectuation of public
rights through relief to individuals." (417
F.2d at 576) .
See also Munoz v. California Department of Employment
(#191631, July 31, 1969, unpublished opionion, Sacramento
-2-
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- t
4634
Superior Court) in which the court held that the State
defendants herein had an affirmative obligation to personally
investigate agricultural field sanitation and safety conditions
before referring farm workers. The decision was based on
undisputed evidence showing that: 1) every farm worker referred
by the State Farm Labor Office was referred to a grower who
violated fundamental State sanitation laws, such as absence
of toilets (1,869 violations proved), and to growers who violated
minimum wages (481 violations) ; and 2) the Farm Labor Office
itself flagrantly violated State sanitation and safety laws
by refusing to provide or require any drinking water or safe
buses to farm workers .
III.
IMPORTANCE OF IMMEDIATE RELIEF
The Fifth Circuit in Gomez, supra , eloquently stated the
harm being caused to the plaintiffs by Farm Labor Offices that
fail to protect their rights:
"The aim of the plaintiffs through appropriate
judicial remedies, is to secure for themselves
the fundamentals of human dignity. They seek to
protect their right to decent housing and sani-
tary living conditions so they and their children
may be free of disease. They seek to protect
their ability to work for the wages which Congress
has in effect determined to be the minimum to-
which they are entitled. They seek sanctions for
having been deprived of some of these few pro-
tections designed by Congress to lift them out
of economic-sociologic, peonage. Such fundamental
human, highly personalized rights are just the
stuff from which Section 1983 claims are . to be
made." (417 F.2d at 579)
The 1970 agricultural year is just about to commence in
California. It is already in full swing in Imperial County.
The number of farm worker jobs will quadruple in the next 45
days. Therefore, immediate relief is essential for protection
of the fundamental rights of these workers, including protection
of their health and safety.
-3-
4635
IV.
THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS FULLY GUARANTEE THE
RELIEF SOUGHT HEREIN
In the alternative to cutting off federal funds to the
State Farm Labor Offices, a right clearly available to the
Secretary of Labor, (Gomez, supra and 20 C.F.R. §602.20 & 22)
plaintiffs have sought (see Exhibit B attached to the complaint)
to compel a Fair Employment Plan to oversee the Farm Labor
Offices by a committee of farm workers, growers and U. S.
Labor Department officials in accordance with the Wagner-Peyser
Act and federal regulations and State Farm Labor Office
Regulations promulgated thereunder. These regulations clearly
bestow and gurantee in unequivocal and specific fashion the
right of American farm workers to the "best jobs available" and
the highest prevailing wages in accordance with federal, State
and local laws. The regulations specif ically d=ny growers the
use of any Farm Labor Office service if they are in violation
of "any federal, state or local law." Set forth below is a
compendium of the applicable federal regulations enacted pur-
suant to the Wagner-Peyser Act and the California Farm Labor
Office Regulations promulgated in accordance with said federal
regulations.
Federal Regulations:
"Each State desiring to receive the benefits
of the Wagner-Peyser Act shall submit detailed plans
for carrying out the provisions of the act in ac-
cordance with the instructions . . . prescribed by
the Secretary of Labor. (20 C.F.R. §602.20)
"[Each State must] Submit a statement that
the State agency will adhere to the basic standards
set forth as United States Employment Service
policies . . . and will maintain an organication
and procedures necessary to carry out effectively
such policies." (20 C.F.R. §603.4)
-4-
4636
"It is the policy of the United States Employment
Service: .... (20 C.F.R. §604.1):
"To ensure so far as practicable that workers
are placed on jobs which utilitze their highest
skills." 20 C.F.R, §604. 1(f)
"To make no referral as a result of which a
charge would be made either to the worker or
the employer for filling the job." (20 C.F.R, §604,1 (h).
"To make no referral to a position where the
services to be performed or the terms or conditions
of employment are contrary to federal. State or
local law." (20 C.F.R. §604.1 (j)
"To recruit no workers for employment if the
wages, hours, or other conditions of work offered
are substantially less favorable to the individual
than those prevailing for similar work in the
locality." (20 C.F.R. §604. 1 (k)
"It is the policy of the United States Employ-
ment Service ... to actively cooperate with State
health agencies in programs affecting agricultural
workers." (20 C.F.R, §604.5)
State Regulations Pursuant to Federal Regulations:
The following regulations are from the State Department of
Employment, Local Office Manual: Farm Placement Operations;
Management and Supervision:
"Whenever possible, place workers on jobs which
use their highest skills or provide the highest
earning potential." (§2106(5))
"To make no referral to a position where the
services to be performed or the terms or condi-
tions of employment are contrary to Federal,
State, or local law." (§2106(9))
"To recruit no workers for employment if the
wages, hours, or other conditions of work offered
are substantially less favorable to the individual
than those prevailing for similar work in the
locality." (§2106(10))
"A domestic unemployed worker ... is entitled
to the best job we have to offer . . . and which
is not in violation of any Federal or State laws
or regulations. The best job is that job which
would provide the applicant with one, or a combina-
tion of the following factors:
a. An opportunity to utilize his highest skill.
b. Has the highest earning potential or longsst
job duration.
c . The most desirable working conditions, crop
activity, housing facilities, transportation
arrangements or accessability to the job."
(§2159(3))
/// ///
-5-
4637
"Do not accept orders under the following conditions:
(b) If services are to be performed or
conditions of employment are contrary to
Federal, State or local law." (§2139(3))
"Discontinue referral immediately if you find
that any order already taken contains factors
making it unacceptable under policies for
order taking. Contact the employer and attempt
to get him to remove the unacceptable factors;
if he will not, advise him you must cancel
the order." (§2160(6))
"Recruit no workers for employment if the
wages, hours, or other conditions of work are
substantially less- favorable to the individual
than those prevailing for similar work in the
locality." (§2160(7))
"An order is substandard if the wages offered,
the hours of work, or working conditions are
substantially below the standard in your com-
munity for the type of work.
When you receive a substandard order tell
the employer which factors are substandard.
If he declines to change the order, tell him
there is only a limited chance the opening
can be filled and the Department will make
no attempt to recruit workers." (§2153)
"Where there are numerous quits of a parti-
cular employer, interview workers to determine
the reason. If quits seem to be attributable
to the employer or his representative, discuss
the problem with the employer and seek to
achieve a remedy to the problem." (§2176 (1) (e) )
"The . . . farm labor office seeks to aid . . .
farm workers from wage loss from lack of job
opportunity " (§2103)
"Provide the applicant any information which
may increase his opportunity for agricultural
employment." (§2110(9))
"It is the joint responsibility of the local
office and the employer to keep orders current
and to review the orders as often as necessary
to insure that they reflect an accurate need
of workers and the conditions of employment
being offered." (§2139(4))
"An agricultural order ... II]nvolves recording
information about ... I the] order and an em-
ployer which will tell [W] hat attractions
the job and the working conditions offer an
applicant." (§2140)
"To the extent possible, each placement
interviewer should visit key agricultural
-6-
4638
1 establishments to keep his occupational
knowledge up to date." (§2104) (Emphasis
2 where underlined.)
Dated: March 3, 1970.
3 Respectfully submitted,
4 GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO, YEGHIAYAN,
ABASCAL, ALTSHULER, BRENNAN, DELEVETT
5 FRETZ, LIVINGSTON, MC CABE, POWELL,
WILSON and YNOSTROZA
6
7
By * vv ./^M,A\
8 Robert L. Gnaizda
11
9
10 Martin R. Glick
Robert L. G
'AJl^ M_c,.(L^-_;
12 VARTKES YEGHIAYAN <f"
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-7-
4639
GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO,
YEGIIIAYAN, ABASCAL, ALTSilULER,
BRENHAN, DELEVETT , FRET 2 ,
LIVINGSTON, MC CABE, POWELL, C ! ."' :i' ?A!..
WILSON, and YNOSTROZA, p i" | rr rj
California Rural Legal Assistance ' *"* ' "
1212 Market Street . ,.
San Francisco, California ■ . "• *< 1 n '3 '-J
Telephone:" (415) 863-4911
CLERK, U. S. DiC-T. COL-RT
v-.Wj I ii/i..u.«"_-u
LOUIS GARCIA, ALFONSO GONZALES,
ROBERT E. GONZALES
Mexican-American Political Association
Mexican-American Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
1231 Market Street
San Francisco, California
Telephone: (415) 626-8100
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
250 FARM WORKERS, et al . ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY
OF LABOR, et al. ,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. C-70 481 AJZ
REPLY BRIEF
The Court requested a clear statement of issues from the
parties. Therefore Part I, immediately following^ contains the
proposed order, and an explicit point by point breakdown of each
part of that order stating [1] the precise regulations involved,
[2] the actual practice which is out of compliance with the
regulations, with documentation, [3] the feasibility of compliance
with the law, and [4] a one sentence summary of the language of
the proposed order.
Part II is "irreparable injury" — setting forth the urgency
of action to prevent injury from pesticide poisonings and
unhealthy sanitary conditions and setting forth the enormous cost
to California farm workers of continued non-compliance with law.
The remaining sections other than the last one deal with
4640
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
defendants' affidavits and statistics--to show that these support
plaintiffs' case. The final section contains the legal authority
for plaintiffs' proposed preliminary injunction requiring defen-
dants to obey their own rules.
PROPOSED ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants be restrained and
enjoined during the pendancy of this action from:
A. Refusing (1) to require and record on each employer
order form information concerning health and sanitation facilities
and pesticide use at the job site, (2) to post in a conspicuous
place this information along with information concerning wage
offered, anticipated job duration, and the approximate location of
the job, and (3) to reject any job order out of compliance with
law.
B. Refusing to verify wage and working condition
information received from employers by checking these conditions
during routine field visits, by declining to serve employers,
found out of compliance with law, until the unlawful condition
is corrected, and by developing a plan to suspend service to
employers found to be repeated violators.
C. Providing any service to farm labor contractors or
other persons who receive any fee or charge for providing workers
to another.
D. Accepting any order listing a wage below the pre-
vailing wage, including any piece rate order which does not
guarantee that each worker placed will receive no less than the
prevailing wage.
E. Refusing to form a state advisory council and
advisory councils in local communities served, such committee to
be fairly and equally representative of the interests of both
farm employers and employees.
4641
F. Refusing to require minimum job durations and pay
on orders placed, depending upon the nature of the order, but
not to bo less than 8 hours on pool placements and one week on
regular jobs v/hich are not cancelled by the employer prior to
the time the referred employee arrives at the job site.
I
POINT BY POINT BREAKDOVJN OF PROPOSED ORDER
A. HEALTH AND SANITATION VIOLATIONS (TOILETS
AND DRINKING WATER)
1. Regulations
It is the policy of the United States
Employment "Service. . .To make no referral to
a position where the services to be performed
or the terms of conditions of employment are
contrary to federal, State or local law.
[20 C.F.R. §604. l(j), see also identical
State Reg. §2106 (9) ) .2
State regulation §2159(3) further amplifies this. It
states that a domestic farm worker "is entitled to the best job
we have to offer [including] "The most desirable working
conditions . " (emphasis added) .
State regulations specifically prohibit accepting any
job orders from growers who violate any applicable laws: "Do not
accept orders under the following- conditions : . . .If services
are to be performed or conditions of employment are contrary to
federal, State or local law (§2193(3))."
State regulations specifically require the Farm Labor
Office to include on its employer' s job orders: "the conditions
The Proposed Order with captions is attached to this brief.
2
State regulations are found in the State Department of
Employment, Local Office Manual: Farm Placement Operations
Management and Supervision .
///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4642
of employment being offered." (§2139(4))", and to "record. . .
information about. . .the order and an employer which v/ill tell,
what attractions the job and the working conditions offer an
applicant (S2140)
iMost significantly, State regulations require that "each
placement interviewer should visit key agricultural establishments
to keep his occupational knowledge up to date." (§2104)
And in Munoz v. State Department of .Employment (Sac. Sup*
Ct., #191631, July, 1969) the Sacramento Superior Court held that
the very defendants herein had an affirmative duty to verify
health and sanitation conditions before accepting a job order due
to 90% of all growers violating toilet and drinking water
requirements. (1/869 health and sanitation violations proved
in one year in Salinas Valley) .
2. Actual Practice
Despite these regulations mandating the defendants to
verify working conditions and prohibiting the use of their free
services by law violators, the Director of the State Farm Labor
Service and the long-time manager of the Sonoma County Farm
Labor Office testified that their policies were:
(a) Never to verify agricultural working conditions
(Dep., Eisley 55-56);
(b) Never to inquire of employers as to actual working
conditions (Dep., Eisley, 55-58);
(c) Never to refuse service to an employer even if they
received "1,000 complaints" from Santa Rosa workers. (Dep.,
Eisley, 136-138) .
Affidavits (E-AN) further verify the defendants' refusal to obey
their own rules and regulations.
3 . Feasibility of Obeying Their Own Rules
Obviously the mere existence of the rules is sufficient
proof of feasibility. Ha-.-ever, the defendants' farm labor
-4-
4643
managers on deposition admitted that actual field verification
of working conditions was totally feasible.
Eisley, the Manager of the Santa Rosa Office, testified
that in 1969, his office made 695 separate, personal field visits
to growers' and that on the average each grower was personally
visited at his farm twice a year for about an hour each time
(Dep. , 49-58). Moreover, he admitted that the majority of the
available space on the employer job order form he uses relates
exclusively to working conditions, including whether toilets and
drinking water are available (Dep., 159-163).
Despite State Farm Labor Office policy being not to
obey their own rules, Pat Crow, the manager of the Imperial Farm
Labor Office admitted that he violates State policy and does
verify toilets and drinking water violations by personally
checking on their existence during grower field visits (480-
3600 field visits a year) (Dep. , Crow, 62-68) .
The Imperial County Sanitarian admitted that his office
cannot effectively enforce field sanitation laws, that he requires
the assistance of the Farm Labor Office to effectively enforce
these laws, and that it is quite feasible for the Farm Labor
Office to verify if applicable health and sanitation laws are
being obeyed. (Ex. AW) See also the affidavits of other
County Sanitarians supporting the 'Imperial County Sanitarian's
position that county agricultural health departments are under-
staffed, require the active assistance of the Farm Labor Office,
and believe the Farm Labor Office has the expertise, to be fully
effective. (Ex. AX, AY).
A striking illustration of the feasibility of the
defendants' assuming their regulatory responsibility as to
working conditions is contained in the attached February, 1970,
Farm Labor Service bulletin to farm workers, Ex. AQ. The
government promises the farm worker a good job, then guarantees
4644
1 to him seventeen specific rights as to housing alone, and then
2 ends with the following unequivocal admission of responsibility
3 and acknowledgement of feasibility:
4 If your employer does not provide these
[seventeen] things, tell the Farm Labor
Representative at the nearest local office
of the State employment service.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4 . Proposed Order
The proposed order to protect the health of farm workers
would simply prohibit defendants from failing to secure health
and sanitation assurances when job orders are placed, from
refusing to verify working conditions during the field visits
which they routinely make, and from failing to institute a plan
to withhold service from employers who violate the law.
B. PESTICIDES
1. Regulations
The applicable regulations are set forth supra,
"A. Health and Sanitation Violations," at p. 3. In addition,
the regulations require the Farm Labor Office "to actively
cooperate with State Health agencies in programs affecting
agricultural workers" (20 C.F.R. §604.5); to provide the farm
worker with job orders that reflect. . .the conditions of
employment being offered" [State Reg., §2139(4)]; and to:
Discontinue referral immediately if you find
that any order already taken contains factors making
it unacceptable. . .contact .the employer and attempt
to get him to remove the unacceptable factors . "
[State Reg., §2160(5), emphasis added] and:
It is the policy of the United States Employment
Service. . .to refer young workers [25% of all job
placements involve persons under 21] to jobs which
are not injurious to their health and welfare. . ."
(20 C.F.R. 604.6, emphasis added).
2 . Actual Practice
The State defendants all testified at deposition that
it is their policy, despite their employer job order form
requiring information as to working conditions:
4645
(a) 11 ever to inquire of growers as to any matter
relating to the use of pesticides;
, (b) Never to verify if a grower is unlawfully spraying
his fields with toxic pesticides while employing workars ,
despite the State Farm Labor Office making forty thousand (40,000)
personal field visits to growers in 1969 (Dep. , Eisley, 154-167).
3 . Feasibility
The State's total refusal to obey its own regulations
as to protecting farm workers from unlawful and hazardous working
conditions exists despite:
(a) its employer job order forms making specific reference
to "working conditions." (Dep., Eisley, pp. 159-163);
(b) its personnel making 40,000 annual personal, separate
field visits to growers;
(c) Pat Crow, its Imperial Farm Labor Office manager
admitting that it was totally feasible for his office to inquire
of and verify pesticide usage (Dep., p. 52);
(d) its own December, 1969, study documenting that 37,500
farm workers annually (12% of all farm workers) are harmed by
extreme, uncontrolled use of pesticides.
The ease with which pesticide information could be
supplied to farm workers is illustrated by the prevailing practice
in California field and tree crops'. No cannery will accept any
crop until the grower supplies the cannery with full information
as to when he commenced the use of pesticides, the dates of use,
the exact quantity and quality of pesticides, and the exact
locations of such use (attached hereto as Ex. BI is a copy of
such form, plus a typical contract) . Set forth below is part of
said form:
///
///
///
-7-
4646
o
1
-
E
G
G
S
"T
—
-
—
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
■■-
-
■
-
E
u
*
§ 5
I g
>*
■
t' s -
| 2 £
o
n.
il!
<6<
•m
i,
u
-o
r:
D
C
o
E
<-
D
o
1.
1-
o
o !
| ]
i
i
•i
s
1
o
y
"<3
B
II
j
1 1'
o
|
~*
5
5
E
S
o
o
o
4. Proposed Order
The proposed order to protect the safety of farm workers
would enjoin defendants from failing to secure pesticide infor-
mation at the time an order is placed.
C. ILLEGAL FEES
1 . Regulation
It is the policy of the IJnited States Employment
Service to make no referral as a result of which a
charge would be made either to the worker or the
employee for filling the job. (20 C.F.R., 560-:. 1(h))
4647
2 . Actual Practice
Both farm office managers deposed, Milton Eisley and
Pat Crow, testified that they make referrals to farm labor
contractors. (The Calexico Farm Labor Office manager testified
that 30% to 503 of all office referrals — 150,000 to 200,000 per
year--wcrc to middleman -contractors who own no land and grow no
crops). [Dep. , Crow, 38, 44; Dep., Eisley, 204-205]. Pat Crow
testified that these middlemen are then paid by growers at, for-
example, 25 cents a head for each hour of work done or 5 cents
a box for each box picked by a worker [Dep. , 43] . Thus if the
Farm Labor Office sends 100 workers to a contractor-middleman and
the workers work 8 hours, the contractor-middleman receives a
charge from the employers of $200.00 a day. A direct referral
from the Farm Labor Office to the actual employer would have
enabled the farmer to pay each worker $1.90 an hour, instead of
$1.65. Mr. Eisley testified that, though they might tell an
applicant about the jobs of higher pay, they would make referrals
where the contractor was in effect taking a cut from the farm
worker's pay:
Q. Would [you] refer workers out at $1.65 an
hour to a farm labor contractor if other employers in
the area were paying more than $1.65 to identical workers?
. . .[Dep. 207]
A. Yes.
Pat Crow testified that he wasn't aware of any regulation having
to do with use of the farm labor service by a middleman [Dep.
41, 42] . He stated that information about what the grower is
paying the contractor and the nature of their arrangement was
irrelevant [Dep., 44]. This practice probably accounts for the
many referrals made below the $2.00 to $3.00 an hour wage the
State Farm Labor Office bulletin describes to be the general pre-
vailing wage. [Cal. Annual Farm Labor Report, 1968, p. 20] .
3 . Feasibility
Implementation would present no problem whatsoever. The
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4648
Farm Labor Office would accept orders only from those who owned
or leased the crop or land to be worked upon, just as they are
doing now with 502 to 705 of the orders placed. During operation
of the foreign labor program, the defendants refused to allow labc
contractors to use their services to receive foreign labor but
would only refer them to legitimate growers. [20 C.F.R.,
§§602.9 et seq.) .
4. Proposed Order
The proposed order, in the language of the regulation,
enjoins the defendants from referring workers to persons who
receive money for providing workers to another.
D. PREVAILING WAGE
1. Regulations
It is the policy of the United States Employment Service
to recruit no workers for employment if the wages, hours, or
other conditions of work offered are substantially less favorable
to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in
the locality. 20 C.F.R. §604.5 [Similar state regulation is
§2106(10)]
2. Actual Practice
The farm labor managers have required nothing more than
minimum wage on hourly pay orders placed with them. [Dep. ,
Eisley, 173; Dep., Crow, 71). Farm Labor Offices Chief Tolbert
testified that his offices make no inquiry and wish to receive
no information concerning wages actually being paid. [Dep. 66-68]
He further testified that when they do compute prevailing wage, it
is computed solely from orders placed with their offices without
regard to wages offered by growers who do not need to resort
to the placement office to find workers. [Dep., 80]. Pat Crow
testified that he makes no computation whatever on prevailing
wage. [Dep., 78), [See also Ex. AO: affidavit of California's
second largest strawberry grower that growers who pay poor wages
10-
4649
do use the Farm .Labor Service] .
In actuality, however, the Farm Labor Office routinely
accepts orders at below the minimum wage. Just about half the
orders placed specify no hourly wage at all. [Dep. , Eisley, 233]
These orders offer v/orkers a "piece" rate, e.g. 16 cents a box
for tomatoes or $4.00 a bin for apples picked off the ground.
[Dep., Eisley, 172-182; Dep., Crow, 72-73]. In deposition both
Farm Labor Office managers and director Tolbert testified that
neither they nor their staff members had any idea what number
3
of bins or boxes a good worker could pick in an hour. [Dep.,
Eisley, 174, 177-179; Dep., Crow, 72-73]. Thus the Farm Labor
Office in Santa Rosa has accepted $4.00 a bin jobs in apples
although even the best worker cannot pick more than 2 bins (3,000
lbs) of apples in an 8 hour day. [One bin holds 30 boxes of
apples] . [Ex. BK; Dep. , Eisleyj 172-182] . Payroll records are
never checked by Farm Labor Office employees. [Dep., Crow, 66;
Dep. , Tolbert, 67] . Mr. Eisley testified that his office would
not conduct a countywide survey of piece rates even if a legitimat
group of farm workers presented. to his office documentary evidence
that the growers by whom they were employed during the year were
paying average piece rate wages of only $1.10 per hour. [Dep., 18
Pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act the Secretary of Labor
has instituted regulations requiring, if foreign labor is to be
used, that each v/orker receive no less than the prevailing, hourly
wage. Those regulations deal specifically with the piece rate
gimmick:
There is good reason to doubt the accuracy of this testimony as
several of the Santa Rosa Farm Labor Office staff members are
growers or are related to growers. For'example, Mrs. Blasi
referred workers to her own ranch. There wore 40 referrals to
the Blasi Ranch by the Santa Rosa Office, some on the piece rate
[Dep. , Eisley, 257-260] [See Exhibits BQ and BR, affidavits of
workers who were referred to the Blasi Ranch and received no
work] .
-11-
2]
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
4650
Piece rates shall be designed to produce hourly
earnings at least equivalent to the hourly rate
specified [prevailing wage] and no workers shall be
paid less than the specified hourly rate. The
computation of makeup pay shall be made on a pay
period basis and makeup pay shall be paid to each
.worker whose average hourly earnings in the pay
' 'period do not equal the specified hourly rate..
1(20 C.F.R. §602.10b(2))
i
3. Feasibility
About half the orders now placed specify an hourly rate.
[Dep., Eisley, 233]. The only change then would simply be a
requirement that each employer promise that he will pay no less i
than the prevailing hourly rate for each worker referred. As
mentioned previously, the Labor Department and State of Calif orniJ
have previously operated such a system in connection with
importation of foreign labor.
4. Proposed Order
The proposed order would specifically prohibit defendants
from allowing growers to subvert the prevailing wage by listing
only piece rate pay.
E. LIST OF AVAILABLE JOBS
1. Regulations
' The regulations require that each farm worker be given the
maximum exposure to all available jobs, rather than to only one
job. The Farm Labor Service's industrial counterpart, with whicl
it generally shares rental space and a common entrance, requires
that all available jobs be posted. [Dep., Tolbert 134]. The
Farm Labor Service refuses to do so. [Dep., Tolbert, 132-133].
The regulations, however, state that the Farm Labor Office must:
"Provide the applicant any information which may increase
his opportunity for agricultural employment." [§2110(9), emphas
added] .
"A domestic unemployed worker. . .is entitled to the
best job we have to offer. . .'12159(3), emphasis added].
"The. . .farm labor office seeks to aid. . .farm
-12-
4651
workers from wage loss from lack of job opportunity. . ." (S2103)
2 . Actual Practice ' •
Practically every Farm Labor Office refuses to make public
a list of pertinent information about pending jobs. Bill Tolbert
stated that even though he knew that jobs arc listed for all
v/orkers except farm workers , he would not change this practice.
[Dep., 132, 133, 105, 106]. The Farm Labor Offices have an
obsession with their statistics, constantly seeking to inflate .
them. Thus Tolbert testified that he wouldn't list all jobs
because the office might occasionally lose a statistic if the
farm worker found the job from the blackboard. He testified that
"Well, certainly, that [statistics] is part of the game." [Dep.,
133] .
Thus a farm worker entering a Farm Labor Office cannot
find out the location of available jobs. He cannot read for
himself the wages that are being offered or the likely duration
of the job or the type of work or any other specific information.
He can only learn what the office employee decides to tell him.
[Ex. A] Frank Valenzuela, former Farm Labor Office employee,
stated in his^af f idavit, that the offices are grower-dominated
and oriented. Thus v/orkers are frequently referred to the worst
jobs (long distance away, poor pay or working conditions, thin
crop) because that grower has the' hardest time recruiting on
his ov/n. [Ex. A] Grower Tom Driscoll confirms this. [Ex. AO] .
In Santa Rosa (see footnote 3 supra) , Farm Labor Office employees
refer workers to their own ranch and director Bill Tolbert, an
orange grower for 20 years in Ventura county, testified that he
sees nothing wrong with it. [Dep., 100].
3 . Feasibility
Imperial County Farm Labor Office director Pat Crow
testified on deposition that, even at the Calexico day haul
where 1/4 of all California placements occurred in 19G9, ho
■13-
4652
requires growers to list on one of his £ive giant blackboards
their name, crop activity, wage, expected job duration, and
sometimes place of employment. [Dep. , 29, 30, 35]. The black-
boards are adjusted every day to record accurate information.
[Dep, 3G] . Milton Eisley in Santa Rosa testified that all this
information is available on a board facing away from workers
who come to the counter. [Dep., 151-52] Simply by turning the
board at an angle the information on available jobs would be
visible to all who are seeking the best available job. [Dep. , 152
4 . Proposed Order
In accordance with disclosure regulations and duty to
provide the best job, the proposed order restrains defendants
from refusing to make public to each worker the full range of
available jobs and pertinent information pertaining to the jobs.
F. ADVISORY COUNCILS
1. Regulations
Federal regulations require that each local Farm Labor
Office, as well as the State Farm Labor Office, maintain formal
relationships with farm workers and growers through the creation
of advisory councils:
Each State agency shall maintain a State advisory
council. . .and shall maintain local advisory councils,
in such communities and constituted in such manner as
the State agency deems necessary to promote and assist in
the carrying out of the services and activities
described in those regulations. (20 C.F.R. §602.17,
emphasis added) .
It is the policy of the United States Employment
Service. . .To cooperate with other agencies of
government and private and community organizations
to improve the employment process and to participate
in community programs for the same purposes. (20
C.F.R. §604.12)
2 . Actual Practice
The vast majority of the Farm Labor Offices have no
advisory councils. Eisley, the Sonoma County Farm Labor Office
manager, testified that:
-14-
4653
(a) His office has no advisory council, does not want
one and sees no purpose in having one.
; (b) Seven years ago his office had an advisory council.
and "all of its members were growers. [Dep., 119-121]. Pat Crow's
1
testimony was that he saw no use for advisory committees. [Dep.,
109].
3. Feasibility
None of the defendants deposed questioned the feasibility
of advisory councils, pursuant to federal regulations. One,
Eisley, stated that in fact he used to haveone, consisting solely
of growers. [Dep., 119-120]. Host federally-funded programs,
such as OEO Legal Service programs, have statewide and local
advisory councils .that meet regularly.
4 . Proposed Order
The order suggested is in the words of the regulations
requiring the state and local areas to form representative
advisory councils.
G. MINIMUM JOB DURATION
1. Regulations
An order is substandard if. . .the hours of work. . .
are substantially below the standard in your community
for the type of work. [§2160(7)]
It is the joint responsibility of the local office
and the employers to keep orders current and to review
the orders' as often as necessary to insure that they
reflect an accurate need of workers and the conditions
of employment being offered. [§2139(4)]
The Farm Labor Office seeks to aid. . .farm workers
from wage loss from lack of job opportunity [§2103].
A domestic unemployed worker. . .is entitled to the
best job we have to offer. . .[§2159(3), emphasis added].
2 . Actual Practice
The Farm Labor Office will accept any order regardless
of the duration of the job. Milton Eisley testified that it is
a placement even if there is only 30 minutes of work. [Dep. ,
16G] . Pat Crow testified that ten minutes was sufficient [Dep.,
•15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4G54
84]. Furthermore a farm applicant is often given no information
about the expected duration of the job he is being sent to.
Secondly, there is no requirement that a grower call in
and cancel his order if the grower independently fills the job.
Thus if a farm worker drives 50 miles to a job which was filled
the day before, the worker gets nothing and forfeits his
gasoline money. [Affidavits A, E-Z] .
There are numerous affidavits filed with the court
citing the frequency with which this occurs. Gilberto Valenzuela
[Ex. L] was referred to a job in the state of Washington. When
he arrived he found about 500 workers in a camp there. Fortunate 1
workers were given 2 to 3 hours work a day. Some were given no 1
work at all. Gilberto Valenzuela returned to Calexico and
told other workers about to be sent to the same job in Washington <
what the conditions were really like. Upon doing so he. was
.scolded and threatened by a farm labor office employee [Ex. L,
p. 3] . Others include Robert Guerrero [Ex. E] , — 15 minute job;
Antonio Lopez [Ex. F] — no work at all when he arrived at job;
Survey in Calexico of 125 workers [Ex. J] --90% had been sent to
jobs with less than a full day's pay causing loss for the day's
efforts; Domingo Valdez [Ex. V]--125 mile round trip to employer
who had no buckets and Michael Onofrey [Ex. Z] — 5 hour bus ride
for 36 workers given no more than 3 hours work each.
As shown by Exhibits A, K, L, M, and Z, employers fre-
quently ask for more workers than they can possibly use so that
they will be certain to get enough of them, so that they pick out
the ones they like best, and so that they can deal quickly and
effectively with any worker who ventures to complain about
promised wages or lack of proper sanitation.
3 . Feasibility
When employers placed orders with the Department of
Labor for foreign workers they were required to show that they
-16-
■
4655
had offered U.S. .workers guaranteed jobs'. The guarantee was for
3/4 of the work days in the period. Thus, since the minimum
order was six weeks, guaranteed jobs had to be offered for a full
month . If the employer then failed to provide the month's work,
he was obligated to pay the worker just as if he had worked the
4
full month.
It would be no problem for the Farm Labor Office to simply
refuse to accept job orders of less than a specified minimum.
The full regulation is as follows: The offers to U.S. workers,
shall Guarantee each worker the opportunity for employment for at
least three-fourths of the workdays of the total period during
which the work contract and all extensions thereof are in effect,
beginning with the- first workday after the worker's arrival
at the place of employment and ending on the termination date
specified in the work contract, or its extensions, if any. For
purposes of the work contract, a workday consists of 8 hours
of any day except Sunday, New Year's Day, July 4, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving, or Christmas. If. the worker, during such period,
is afforded less employment than required under this provision,
the worker shall be paid the amount which he would have earned
had he, in fact, worked for the guaranteed number of days.
Where wages are paid on a piece rate basis, the worker's average
hourly earnings shall be used for the purpose of computing
amounts due. under this guarantee. In determining whether the
guarantee of employment has been met, any hours which the
worker fails to work during a workday when he is afforded the
opportunity to do so by the employer, and all hours of work
performed, shall be counted in calculating the days of
employment required to meet this guarantee. If, before the
expiration date specified in the work contract the services of th
worker are n5 longer required for reasons beyond the control
of the emoloyer (due to an Act of God, such as frost, flood,
drought, earthquake, hail, forest fire, or other natural
calamity of such character as to make the fulfillment of the
contract imoossible) , and this fact is determined by the
Regional Administrator, the work contract may be terminated
and efforts will be made to transfer the worker to other
comparable employment. If such transfer is not effected, the
worker shall be returned to the place of recruitment at the
emoloyer' s expense. In either event deductions for transportati
and subsistence en route from the place of recruitment to the pla
of employment made pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section
shall be refunded. Whenever the contract is terminated under
this provision, the employer shall be responsible for the
three-fourths guarantee for the period beginning with the first
workday after the worker's arrival at the place of . employment
and ending with the date the work contract is terminated, and
the emoloyer shall pay the worker all other amounts due under the
contract. (20C.F.R. §602 . 10a (h) ) .
///
///
-17-
4656
4 . Proposed Order
The order in light of regulations prohibiting "substandard"
job orders offering no job duration beyond a few minutes or hours
and mandating that orders be "kept current" restrains defendants
from accepting job orders which do not specify at least a day's
work on the daily placements and a week of work on full
applications and from refusing to require payment unless the
employer timely cancels the work order.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
/// ' .
///
///
/// '
///
///
///
///
-18-
4657
IRREPARABLE INJURY
Although the agricultural season in California never ceases
altogether, the months of lowest activity are February, March and
April. The season actually begins in Hay as the total placements
(using defendants' own statistics) double from April and then
increase seven-fold by July. [Crow dep. Exs. B and C] Unless
relief is afforded now, no help will be forthcoming to California
farm workers until the 1971 growing season, causing incalculable
physical and financial harm to these workers.
The Court can take judicial notice that federal and state
sanitation requirements are designed to protect the health of the
workers. Exhibits- AR-AV specifically cite the danger. Fred
Singh, Imperial County sanitarian, warned that two cases of
typhoid fever in 1968 resulted from the practice of using a common
drinking cup: "Many of the fields in Imperial County are not
complying with health and safety code regulations. There are many
who use a large drum of water and an empty beer or other can. We
recently found a crew of 60 people using only six drinking cans in
one day, we checked four crews and found all of them in violation.
[Ex. AR] Doctor Barnett Cline, a specialist in epidemiology,
states in his affidavit that the use of a common drinking cup by a
large number of workers could result in transmission of tuber-
culosis and infectious hepatitis. He further states that failure
to provide toilets and handwashing facilities or provision of
dirty, effectively useless toilets, "constitutes a grave potential
danger to the health of the consumer of agricultural products. It
would result in transmission of common diseases such as amoebinsis
typhoid and paratyphoid fever, infectious hepatitis, and bacillary
dysentary." [Ex. AS] Dr. Russell Williams, senior physician on
the Monterey County Hospital Staff and a specialist in internal
medicine with 29 years' experience, also testifies to the grave
-11
4658
danger to workers and consumers from sanitation violations,
pointing out the high incidence of such diseases in Mexico where
vegetables may be unwashed and stating that sharing of oris can
will result in "transmission of tuberculosis, trench mouth, and
i
even syphilis -- the latter would result when a worker has an ope
lesion of the mouth." [Ex. AU] Dr. William Werner, a practicing
physician, reaffirms these medical opinions. [Ex. AT] In addi
tion to these more severe diseases, California farm workers stant
to lose countless hours of work from such diseases as common cole
measles, etc., if existing federal and state laws are not prompt
enforced.
If anything, non-enforcement of pesticide laws presents
even greater immediate danger to the farm worker. On December 1
1969, the defendant Human Relations Agency (Department of Public
Health) , issued its comprehensive report on pesticide danger to
the farm worker. It reported that at least 150 of every 1,000
farm workers, or 37,500 statewide, are adversely affected,
including death, hospitalization and loss of work by excessive
uncontrolled use of pesticides of high toxicity.
"First, a large percentage of . pesticide-related
injuries involve serious, disabling illness;
secondly, like other kinds of work-related
illnesses, pesticide poisoning is largely pre-
ventable and; thirdly, we have reason to believe
that the reports of illness, which we receive. do
not accurately reflect the true magnitude of
the problem...." [Report of Human Relations
Agency, Department of Public Health, December
10, 1969, at p. 4.]
Furthermore, the statistics are lower than actuality. The Publi
Health Department states that "only a fraction of pesticide
poisonings co.rie to the attention of offical agencies under prese
circumstances . " The 1966 Public Health Report stated that "the
severity of illness caused by agricultural chemicals is indicate
by the greater frequency with which workers were expected to los
time from work with such illness, as well as by the greater
-to-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
11
12
13
)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3J 30
31
32
4659
frequency with which they arc hospitalized, compared with occupa-
tional illness from all causes." lOccupational Disease in
California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural
Chemicals — 19 6 6.]
Of all the pesticides that are now used in the United
States, the most toxic is the organic phosphate family, which
includes Tepp, parathion, thimet, phosdrin, demeton, EPN, and
methyi-parathion. Originally developed by the Germans during
World War II as the central ingredient in nerve gas, organic
phosphate chemicals were converted for agricultural use after
1945. As the Technical Bulletin for Physicians points out, "it
is the phosphate ester [organic phosphate] pesticides with which
the physician should be most familiar. Among them are the most
hazardous of all pesticides...." [State Department of Public
Health, Diagnosis and Treatment of Phosphate Ester Pesticide
Poisoning, Technical Bulletin for Physicians, p. 2.] A single droi
of Tepp on the skin can prove fatal. Parathion, the roost widely
used of the organic phosphates, is at least 120 times more toxic
to the human skin than is DDT. An oxygen analog of parathion,
paraoxon, which can form as a residue on foodstuffs sprayed with
parathion, is 10 times more toxic than is parathion, Thimet
and phosdrin are also more powerful than parathion, and are
approximately 130 times more toxic than DDT. At least 55 million
pounds of highly toxic organic phosphates were used in the United
States in 19 67, approximately a quarter of which were used in
California. 1,152,819 pounds alone were applied in Imperial
County, California, in 1967, as compared with only 369,691 pounds
of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (including DDT) — or three
times the quariity of less toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons applied.
[State Department of Public Health, Occupational Disease in
California Attributed to Pesticides and Other Agricultural
Chemicals — 19 67, p. 3.]
-Zl-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4660
This injury rate is likely to climb even higher in the
future. The growth of pesticide injuries in California has been
paralleled by an increase of the use of pesticides in agriculture,
particularly of organic phosphate compounds. From 1960 to 1966,
the use of organic phosphates increased by at least 160%, as
compared with a growth of 25% for all other pesticides. With the
prohibition of the use of DDT in California and in other parts
of the United States, organic phosphates will be used even more ■
frequently in the future, and, unless adequate steps are taken,
the pesticide injury rate will increase correspondingly. As the
State Department of Public Health concluded in its December 10th
report:
"It has been predicted by pest control specialists
that as the usage of DDT and other persistent
organochlorine compounds is eliminated, increasingly
great amounts of organophosphate pesticides will be
used both on the farm and in the home. Since the
members of this latter family of chemicals are
generally more toxic to humans than are the organo-
chlorines it is possible, or even likely that
we will witness an increase in the incidence of
both occupational and home pesticide morbidity."
[State Department of Public Health, A Report to
the 1970 Legislature on the Effects of the Use of
DDT [and] Similar Pesticides on Human Health and
the Environment, Part III, p. 2.]
•
Defendants' Exhibit 3, submitted by Dr. Milby, an employee
of. defendants, elaborates on the Public Health Findings. He points
out that in a house to house survey in Tulare County of 1,120 farm
workers, 176 of them reported seeing a physician for pesticide
poisoning symptoms occurring on the' job. He also notes that. in a
control group of 100 non-farm workers, "only one person reported
seeing a physician for any of the symptoms in question." As a
cientist, he points out that he is not prepared to draw conclu-
ions about other California counties until further studies have
oeen completed.
In addition to the demonstrable danger to both farm workers
nd consumers from pesticide poisoning, the financial harm to the.
60,000 plaintiffs is substantial and undisputed. Since the
4661
complaint does not seek damages and is in no v/ay a punitive
action, expeditious relief is of the essence. Each day of delay
means an unrecoverable loss in money alone of an estimated
$500,000. .[See Complaint, 1110, alleging loss of wages of
I •
$99,800,000 per year.] A major portion of the lost v/ages, v;hich
can never be recovered, relates to the unlawful fee charging of
California farm workers by farm labor contractors and the unlawful
referral of workers to the lowest paying jobs and to jobs paying
below the minimum wage. The other portion of the lost wages is
attributable to the lost wages caused by pesticide poisonings and
communicable diseases, such as typhoid and tuberculosis, caused
by lack of toilets and the use of one drinking cup by as many as
60 field workers. .
/// -.•'.-.
///
v+
///
///
///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
29 ///
30 ///
31 ///
32 ///
-zS~
4662
. • . in
THE STATE DEFENDANTS' AFFIDAVITS ARE MISLEADING
AND IN FACT SUPPORT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGATIONS
The State defendants have submitted affidavits which they
assert cast "doubt upon plaintiffs' case." They argue that pre-
liminary relief should therefore be denied. Careful examination
of the text of the affidavits shows them to be either supportive
of plaintiffs or half-truths or in one or two instances clearly
internally inconsistent and incorrect.
A. Health Officials
One-third of the State defendants' affidavits relate to
local health directors ' statements that they have discovered
innumerable toilet and drinking water violations, that virtually
every California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) complaint led to
a finding of such a violation, and that they are understaffed and
unable to perform their statutory job. (For example: Def. Ex. 7,
757 violations found in Salinas Valley in fiscal year '68 and
'69; (b) Def. Ex. 10-A', all of CRLA 19 69 complaints valid but no
action yet taken in Madera County; and (c) Def. Ex. 8, Sonoma
County Field Sanitation "short-handed. . .and operating at 70%
of authorized staff.") ' ..'.
What the State defendants fail to discuss is that the very
affiants they interviewed have stated and believe that: (a) the
Farm Labor Office is an essential link in successful enforcement,
since, in effect, the "brandishing of the carrot is more successfu
than the threat of the stick"; (b) the Farm Labor Office has the
personnel and the expertise to enforce the law; and (c) the local
field health departments are wholly understaffed, particularly in
agriculturally-dominated areas . - -
Exhibit AW was submitted by Fred Singh, Imperial County
Environmental Health Director, also one of defendants' affiants.
He states: "It is not difficult to make a visual inspection whil
-24-
::
4663
these men (Farm Labor Office) are in the field. They also can
verify if water, drinking cups (single service) , toilet, and hand
washing facilities are at the site." Singh also recommends that
the Farm Labor Office take an active role in sanitation enforce-
\ ■
ment by, in addition to checking conditions, requiring an affidavit
of compliance from employers who use the service and cutting off
those who violate their affidavit. James 0. Mankin, Stanislaus
Health Director, strongly urges Farm Labor Service participation
in health enforcement. He is also one of defendants' affiants
Def. Ex. 5). He states: "In some ways the Farm Labor Service
office would be in a better position to obtain (sanitation)
information because they know when farm work will begin in which
fields." [Ex. AX] See also Exhibit AY.
B. Pesticide Report
The State affidavit from the chief State doctor in charge
of the pesticide study (State Ex. 3) reaffirms and explains
plaintiffs' allegations that 150 of every 1,000 ' farm workers are ,
injured by toxic poisoning each year, and that this is 1,500%
higher than for a control group of non-agricultural workers from
the same area. [See p. 22, supra] . Apparently, the only purpose
of this defendant affidavit is to inform the Court that the State
is planning an even more comprehensive study which will not be
ready for more than a year (mid-1971) .
C. Attempt to Impeach Prior Affidavits
State investigators contacted numerous affiant farm workers
refusing to consult the farm workers' attorneys to be present
during the interviews. Regino de Leon states in his affidavit
that State investigators visited his home three times and ordered
him to appear at the Farm Labor Office in order to sign an
affidavit (Ex. AV) . Although Mr. de Leon informed the investigato
that the Farm Labor Office referred people to substandard jobs and
that the Farm Labor Service was not really necessary, no affidavit
-25-
4664
from Mr. de Leon was submitted by the State. Affidavits attached
to the Protective Order issued by this Court and Exhibits BA and
BB show that as much as two hours was spent by other State
investigators in the homes of farm workers who submitted affidavit
(The total result of these State investigations was that
the State submitted so-called counter-affidavits — Felix Guzman
Ganoa, Dario Lerma (and the Lerma family) , Richard Montalvo,
Ricardo Mejia, and Domingo Valdez.
1. Felix Guzman Ganoa
Mr. Guzman's original affidavit stated that he had had bad
experience with the Farm Labor Office when he went there to apply
for a job [Ex. AA] . In his affidavit submitted to defendants, he
stated that he is generally a crew foreman and has had great
success using the Farm Labor Office. In his new affidavit, Mr.
Ganoz states :
I am signing this third affidavit to clear up the
confusion arising from my first two affidavits. . .
What I want to make clear is that I have absolutely no
complaint at all about the way the Farm Labor Service
Office has helped me in the past get workers for my
boss. . .The only problem I ever had was when I went
to the Farm Labor Office in January of this year to
find a job for myself. As I said in both my affidavits,
the only job they referred me to paid only 65 cents a
tree to prune large old trees. Because of the condition
of the trees, I would not be able to make any money
pruning these trees and I thought I could find a
better job on my own. [Ex. BL]
2. Dario Lerma and Family
The Lermas and Apolenar Marin both originally filed
affidavits stating they had been referred to a grower on two days.
The first day there was no work so they lost a full day. The
second day they were promised 25 cents a bucket and received
only 20 cents. [Ex. X and Y] . In their affidavits to the
State Raymond and Ignacio Lerma state they have never been to the
Farm Labor Office. They were obviously just frightened by the
State investigator's presence. Their father, Dario Lerma, states
in his affidavit given to the State investigator that he went to
-26-
4665
1 the Farm Labor Office "with my 4 sons, Ignacio, Raymond, Armando,
2 and Paul." Apolenar Marin, relates in his new affidavit [Ex. BA]
3 that he too was contacted by a State investigator who "became
4 upset py my refusal (to. sign a paper) ." Marin reaffirms his
5 earlier affidavit and found the actual referral cards proving
I
6 conclusively the truth of the original affidavits. The referral
. .
7 cards are attached to the Marin affidavit [Ex. BA] . Further
8 corrobation is submitted in affidavits of the VISTA worker to
9 whom the Lermas originally complained and in affidavits of two
other farm workers. [Ex. BN and BO]. The Lerma family simply
decided it would be best to tell the State investigator what he
obviously wanted to hear. [See also Ex. BB] .
3. Richard Montalvo 4. Ricardo Mejia 5. Domingo Valdez
These three affidavits submitted by defendants do not
contradict the earlier ones they submitted. [Ex. U, V r W] . In
any case, Domingo Valdez and Ricardo Mejia have checked and again
affirm their affidavits as originally submitted [Mr. Montalvo
could not be located] . [Ex. BC and BD] .
D. Support for Farm Labor Office Operations
The remainder of the State affidavits relate primarily to
so-called affidavits of support. The primary one, Exhibit 17, is
from Mrs. R. G. Crabtree, president of the Cuyama Valley Women.
It states : .._.-. . . -
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The women of our community are thankful to the
Farm Labor Service for getting us_ jobs in the planting
and harvesting of tomatoes. (Emphasis added).
This is a knowingly misleading affidavit. Mrs. Crabtree
is not a farm worker, and, most important, her husband is an
official with the company that owns the entire town of Cuyama and
most of its agricultural valley (he is an Atlantic-Richfield
field manager) .
The typical State affidavit is from Pedro Reyes, Ex. 12.
All he states is that "during the strawberry season in 1969 [the
-27-
4666
Farm Labor Office contacted him] to offer jobs to youth in the
summer months." (Emphasis added) . Nothing in his affidavit
suggests support of the Farm Labor Office. And for good reason.
He does not support the Farm Labor Office. See plaintiffs Ex. BM
in which Mr. Reyes states that he personally knows that the Farm
Labor Office refers workers to bad' jobs and that he has read the
Fair Employment Plan and believes it to be essential for farm
workers .
Even the self-serving State affidavit of its own former
Farm Labor Office employee, William Abeytia, Ex. 18, fails to
support the Farm Labor Office. Despite the State writing the
affidavit, the affiant refused to sign without first making
three separate references in his affidavit to the need for the
Farm Labor Office to improve its. services. See his supplementary
affidavit [Ex. BP] in which he reiterates the need for improvement
states his familiarity with the Fair Employment Plan and his belie
that the Fair Employment Plan is feasible and necessary for the
farm worker.
The State's last affidavit, Ex. 32, Valentin Benitez,
fully supports and documents plaintiffs' position that virtually
every farm worker is dissatisfied with the Farm Labor Office and
wishes it to either be radically improved or closed. Specifica]
the affiant merely states that every farm worker at a meeting
Before the Court for preliminary injunction is only the question
of granting relief which will secure better wages and working
conditions for farm workers, as guaranteed by, and pursuant to,
federal and State regulations. The Court, therefore, does not
at this time have to reach the question of whether farm workers
would benefit from the termination of the Farm Labor Office
should it continue to refuse to obey its own rules arid
regulations. However, plaintiffs would like to point out to
the Court the following:
a. the President of the second largest strawberry grower
in California, and a member of four major California statewide
grower organizations, submitted an affidavit stating that: "it
is my opinion that all parties concerned would be benefitted by
either terminating the Farm Labor Offices or putting them into
receivership to be operated and overseen by a committee composed
(footnote continued on next page)
-28-
4667
he attended wished the Farm Labor Office* to be closed and so
affirmed in writing, with the sole exception of himself. And
that he refused for only one reason: the American Counsul had
previously advised him not to sign any papers because "I could
be deported. . .[and I was told] 'to stay out of trouble." The
affiant further states that all signatures were wholly voluntary
and that no one suggested that he sign:
I told someone there that I could not sign the
petition because I was an inuni grant and did not
want any trouble. I have not had any trouble
from anyone about this . (Emphasis added) .
Footnote 1 continued from p. 28: .'
of farm workers, growers, and Labor Department officials.
"At present the operation of California Farm Labor Offices
primarily benefits only one limited group, those growers who
either violate wage and working- condition laws or pay the lowest
wages. Growers who pay prevailing wages and offer good working
conditions generally have no need for the recruitment mechanism
of the Farm Labor Office^Ex. AO, emphasis added) .
±>. In San Benito County, the farm workers voted 75-0 (ten
abstentions) to close the Farm Labor Office because it gives
them only the worst jobs. (Ex. C)
c. In Santa Barbara County, seventy farm workers were
asked on March 9, 1970 (by a person independent of the plaintiffs
or their counsel) to fill out unsigned questionnaires as to whom
they believed represented their "interests in getting higher
wages and better working conditions, California Rural Legal
Assistance or the Farm Labor Service?" No comments were made
before the balloting. The results were 70 for CRLA, none for
the Farm Labor Service. (Ex. BG)
d. A January, 1970 survey of 125 Imperial County farm
workers showed 121 of the workers to be opposed to the Farm Labor
Office. (Ex. J)
e. Gilbert Lopez, as President and on behalf of the
Mexican-American Political Association of Imperial County, asked
-CRLA to seek to either reform or close the Farm Labor Office.
(Ex. BH) .
f. The Trabajadores Adelante, a farm worker organization
with vast membership in Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and
Monterey counties asked that the Farm Labor Offices be closed
(Ex. BF) . . . • •
g. Paulino Pacheco, a Santa Barbara farm worker ,
circulated a petition among farm workers to close the Farm Labor
Office on February 9, 1970. "Virtually all of the farm workers
who saw it signed it immediately and it was full, by the next
day." (Ex. BG) .
/// '
-29-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4668
. . iv
MISLEADING STATE JOB STATISTICS
In 1966, the State Farm Labor Office allegedly placed.
134;97$ farm workers. By 1968, despite a 25% decline in agricul-
tural employment and no additional funding, this "job placement"
figure rose tenfold to 1,393,810. -In 1969 it rose an additional
25% to an alleged 1,714,900; and it is expected to reach two mil-
lion by 1971. Based upon these "rising" statistics the California
Farm Labor Office, despite mechanization and the entrance of
billion dollar agri-business corporations such as United Fruit
and Purex, maintained its federal funding at 15% of all federal
Farm Labor Service funds ($3.5 million for 1969).
The depositions of the defendants unequivocally prove that
the statistics are meaningless and misleading. In 1969, 15 of
every 16 so-called job placements (1,554,578) were of unknown,
unnamed farm workers for whom not even a social security card
number was available. (Dep. Tolbert, 87-88; Dep. 24). of the
i
remaining 1 of 16 , employment applications were not taken in a
majority "of cases, and in many cases the names of the workers
are wholly unknown. (Dep. Eisley, 168-172, 184-190, 214-226)
The vast majority (at least 93%) of the jobs are of a
duration of 1/2 hour to one day. (Dep. Eisley, 168-172; Dep.
Crow, 48-51). At least four hundred thousand (400,000) of the
job placements relate to non-Americans (Mexicans residing both
temporarily and permanently in Mexico) [Dep. Crow, 104]
One worker could be responsible for 250 job placements a
year since "pool placements" are counted each day for each worker
even where he works continuously for the same employer (Dep. Crow,
84-86) .
If the Farm Labor Office refers one family of six persons
to a job and they quit after a half hour due to below minimum
wages, they count as six job placements. And if another family
-30-
4669
is sent out the same afternoon to the same grower and is fired aft
a half hour, that counts as six more job placements. And if a
different family quits each day due to bad wages and working,
conditions, each job is still counted. Thus, if the same grower
receives a new family of six each day for a twenty day harvest
period, the Farm Labor Office considers it 120 job placements
(6x20) , even though the workers quit due to below minimum wages
or absence of toilets. (Dep. Eisley, 214-222; Dep. Crow, 84-86)
All statistics are given the same weight (Dep. Eisley,
167-168) . In the Calexico Office alone, for example, 463,000
job placements- were secured for 1969. (Calexico' s total popula-
tion is 9,000.) The Farm Labor Office, however, took the names,
or has the names, of farm workers in only 530 job placements or
in only 1/10 of one per cent of all so-called job placements.
(Dep. Crow, Ex. B&C) At least eighty per cent (80%) (368,000)
of the so-called job placements were of non-Americans (Mexicans
residing in Mexico) . (Dep. Crow, 104) And in half of all the
job placements (231,000, an employment 'fee, usually 25 cents per
hour worked, was, in effect, deducted from the workers' wages in
violation of 20 C.F.R. § 604.1(h), prohibiting any charge to
either the employer or the employee. (Dep. Crow, 38,44)
In 1969, the entire statewide Farm Labor Office, according
to its statistics, produced only 9,395 real (or regular) agricul-
tural placements and many of these so-called real placements
were duplications or consisted of one day or even half -hour jobs.
(Dep. Eisley, 167-172, 214-222) . The Santa Rosa Office, for
Crow admitted that he does not know if all of these persons
actually received jobs, since all he does is count the number
of persons on the bus without asking their names, before it
leaves the Calexico Farm Labor Office. He does not verify actual
employment (Dep. Crow, 80; Dep. Tolbert, 87,88)
/////
///// . .
-31-
4670
example, developed only nine new agricultural jobs for the entire
year 1969 and did absolutely no counseling, testing or upgrading
of farm workers. (Dep. Eisley, 222-224 and attached to Dep.-
Ex.- 2-13) . -
1 •
'Thus, 449 State Farm Labor" Office personnel, receiving
3.5 million dollars in 1969, produced, assuming the validity of
their statistics, only 9,395 real jobs, many of which are dupli-
cations or of less than one day's duration.' (Dep. Eisley, 225- •
226) . In a real sense, each Farm Labor Office person therefore
placed workers on only twenty real jobs a year or l/10th of a
job per working day.—
2
In Gubser v. Department of Employment (Farm Labor Service),
76 Cal. Rptr. 577 (D.C.A.,5, 1969) , the court criticised
the State defendants' phony and misleading Farm Labor Office
statistics. In upholding the dismissal of a California Farm
Labor Office official for encouraging inflated, false statistics
the court stated:
"[accurate statistics] would seem to be an inherent
duty of supervising. . .particularly where the Department
of Employment, the state government and the federal
government all relied upon such reports to carry out
the program." (at 580)
"Both the federal and state governments rely upon
field worker recruitment and employment records to
determine where field offices shall be located, the
number of employees necessary to staff the various
stations, and the amount of money to fund the project.
"To argue that a supervisor has no duty to see to
it that the basic statistics upon which the entire
project is grounded are truthful, is to overlook
the purpose of the program." (at 579, emphasis added)
-32-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4671
■- v
DEFENDANTS AT DEPOSITION TESTIFY IN EFFECT THAT THEY
ARE GROWER- CONTROLLED AND ORIENTED
1 The plaintiffs, in summary, alleged in their complaint
i
that the California Farm Labor Offices are grower dominated and
controlled, are anti-farm worker, depress wages and working
conditions and justify their existence through the creation of
ballooned statistics. Affidavits of their former employees and
a large grower support this., (Ex. A,A0,BP) The depositions of
the Sonoma County and Imperial County Farm Labor Office managers
substantiate each and every charge.
The Sonoma County manager, for example, testified that:
a. "The primary and major purpose of the Farm Labor
Office is to harvest the crops." (Dep. 208)
b. None of his fifteen employees speak Spanish although
•as much as 60% of the workers speak Spanish only; (Dep. 21-23)
c. All of his primary staff people are growers, refer
workers- to their own ranches, pay non-minimum guaranteed wages,
and may not even have toilets or drinking water; (Dep. 257-261)
d. He meets with growers formally and informally, but
neither he nor any staff member has ever met with any farm
workers; (Dep. 82, 115-116, 139-141)
e. His office made 695 personal field visits to growers
in 1969, but never checked, and never will check or ask these
growers, if they provide toilets or drinking water; (Dep. 49-57)
f . His office cannot concern itself with pesticide dangers
to workers; (Dep. 156-167)
g. His office has never done any testing or counseling
of any farm workers (Dep. 219,222,223) despite federal regula-
tions specifically requiring counseling and testing (20 C.F.R.
604.3 & 604.8) ;
h. His office has a blacklist of bad workers but does
-33-
4672
1| not record complaints made against growers (Dep. 128-133);
2 J i. Refused to answer as to whether his office would
3 continue to serve a grower even if "1,000" documented complaints
were received. (Dep. 135-138) .
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
T
, The Iniperial County Manager testified that:
i
a. Only 265 non-day haul jobs were found for farm workers
/
by the Calexico office in 1969; (Dep. Ex B&C)
b. 80 to 90% of the day-haul activities (dealing with
over 98% of the placements) is putting residents of Mexico into
U.S. jobs; (Dep. 104)
c. Workers are sent to Arizona on a bus — 100 miles or
more and to Blythe, California — 118 miles for jobs that cannot
last more than one day and may be as little as a few minutes;
(Dep. 45,46,84)
d. No counseling is done despite federal regulations.
(Dep. 92)
-34-
4673
VI
.« NON-ACTION BY THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS
The State defendants take the position that plaintiffs'
allegations are insufficiently specific and in any event they
owe no duty to California farm workers. The federal defendants
admit that the State may have a duty, but deny that the federal
government, despite its regulations and 100% funding, has any
definable duty.
The federal defendants suggest that as a direct result of
this lawsuit, they are considering the possibility of considering
an investigation of plaintiffs* undisputed charges and that these
non-actions: "are expected to be completed within a reasonable
period of time at which time the Secretary will make a determina-
tion whether to proceed. . . with informal discussions or . . .
with notice of hearing." (emphasis added)
The federal defendants fail to mention that the very matter
at issue herein was first specifically referred to them on
October 22, 1968, and their only response was a perfunctory "thank
you for calling this to our attention." And the federal defendants
fail to mention that on July 9, 19 69, Secretary of Labor Shultz
was specifically and formally notified as to the exact matter
at issue by the plaintiffs and refused to even send a perfunctory
letter of response, despite the threat of litigation if no respon
was forthcoming.
And the federal defendants fail to mention that their own
rules and regulations require them to either reform or terminate
any state Farm Labor Office that fails to "maintain an organiza-
tion and procedures necessary to carry out effectively such
policies." (20 C.F.R., §§ 603.4, emphasis added) -
^hese very federal defendants argued strenuously and success-
fully that they had the necessary power to implement the
Philadelphia Plan .regulations establishing minority hiring
quotas in the construction industry, Contractors Assoc, of
-35-
4674
Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor, 38 L.W. 2503 (E.D.Pa,
March, 1970) . Their suggestion here that they may decide to
act in the future belies their argument that they lack the
power1 to do so now. See also Banzhaf v. FCC, 505 F.2d 1032
(D.C.icir. 1968) upholding the right of the FCC to require anti-
smoking TV and radio editorials based solely upon the broad man-
date that the FCC should "protect public health."
/'
6
///
7
///
8
///
9
///
10
///
11
///
12
///
13
///
14
///
15
///
16
•///
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
29
///
30
///
31
///
32 ///
-36-
4675
II
2 THIS COURT HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEFENDANTS
3 TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES AND REGULATIONS
4 ■ i Neither the state nor the federal defendants raise any
5 question relating to this Court's full jurisdiction to hear and
6 decide the issues in this case. Their primary contention is that
7 "defendants have violated no duty owed to the plaintiffs."
8 [Brief, I. A.]
9 The case is reasonably straightforward. In the preceding
10 section plaintiffs have set out each of the state and federal
11 laws and regulations imposing duties upon the federal and state
12 defendants. The foundation of this complaint is that defendants
13 have ignored these laws and regulations to the detriment of
14 workers and to the unfair benefit of employers. The violations
15 range from permitting middlemen ^to earn a fee for the service the
16 Farm Labor Office is supposed to provide free of charge to winking
17 at orders which provide less than the minimum wage. The offices.
18 have refused to assume any of their statutorily mandated duties
19 to protect farm workers from violation of health laws and pesti-
20 cide laws. Ihey have been unwilling to set up advisory committees
21 to even listen to farm, workers although required to do so and make
22 no less than 30 visits every month in every office to talk with
23 growers. And Farm Labor Office Director Tolbert asserts that
24 defendants will never be willing to just make available to workers
25 a list of job openings to allow a worker to choose a good job
26 for himself. Only government officials totally immunized from
27 judicial review could reasonably claim that this course of conduct
28 breaches no duties owed to workers.
29 In two closely related cases both a California Superior
30 court and the United States Court- of Appeals have affirmed that
31 the Wagner-Peyser Act and regulations pursuant thereto impose duti
32 upon the state and federal defendants.
-37-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4676
; In Munoz v. State Department of Employment, Sac. Sup.Ct.
f 191631, (July 1969) , these same state defendants argued that
they had no responsibility for enforcement of health and sanita-
tion laws and could not be required to check field conditions
before; referring a farm worker to a job. The Court held that the
regulations do create such a duty -and that the -Department could
not penalize a worker who refused to report to a job which had
not been checked for health and sanitation compliance.
In Gomez v. Florida State Employment Service, 417 F.2d
569 (5th Cir. 1969) Chief Judge John R. Brown stated the question
to be "whether [farm] workers have rights and remedies under
which they can get relief in Federal Courts when they are deprivet
of the protection and benefit of the wages and working conditions
promised by the [Wagner-Peyser] Act and regulations by state
officials — state officials charged with the protection of the
worker's interest." The Court held that the Act does vest farm
workers with the right to bring civil actions against both
governmental and private defendants to secure enforcement of
rights — •
They seek to protect their right to decent housing
and sanitary living conditions so they and their
children may be free of disease. They seek to pro-
tect their ability to work for the wages which
Congress has in effect determined to be the minimum
to which they are entitled. They seek sanction for
having been deprived of some of those few protections
designed by Congress to lift them out of economic-
sociologic peonage. Such fundamental, highly per-
sonalized rights are just the stuff from which
S 1983 claims are to be made. Id. at p 579. 1/
Defendants urge that Gomez is distinguishable because it dealt
with interstate commerce. In the first place there is direct
testimony that this case deals with interstate and international
commerce. Practically every day of the year workers are sent fron
the Calexico day haul to Ari.zona on buses. (Dep. Crow, 45) Three
affiants testify they were sent from Imperial County to Illinois
[Ex. K] , Minnesota (Ex. M] , and Washington [Ex. L] . Pat Crow
testified that 400,000 residents of Mexico are referred to Cali-
fornia jobs each year by his office alone. [Dep. Crow, 104]
Further, it is clear that even farm labor placement activities
in the 89 California offices which concern jobs wholly within
-38-
4677
An analogous situation was presented in Western Addition
Community Organization v. Weaver, 294 F.Supp. 433 (N.D.Calif.
196 8) . The court restrained a Redevelopment Agency from proceed-
ing with displacements of local residents pursuant to an urban
renewal program until the Agency had submitted to the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development a satisfactory relocation plan
which was approved by the court. In response to the argument
that the granting of the injunction would mean that the court was
attempting to administer the complexities of urban redevelopment,
the court pointed out:
Our decision simply means that the court can and
should see to it that the Secretary complies with the
requirements of the federal statute, and his own
regulations, not merely in form but in substance, and
that the administrative discretion vested in him by
law is not arbitrarily abused, as in this case, but
is reasonably exercised with some substantial basis
in fact to support it. Such is the traditional
function of the court upon review of administrative
action of the kind here involved. Id. at p. 441.
Defendants here have made a similar argument to that in
Western Addition, Supra — that this Court cannot review the
practices of the Farm Labor Service because to do so would be to
"supervise" the operation. They cite for this proposition Brown
v. Board of Trustees of La Grange Independent School Dist. , 187
F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1951). In that case, decided three years
before the United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v.
Board of Education, the court refused to review the operation
of a local school district. It hardly needs extensive analysis
of more recent cases to demonstrate that this reluctance on the
1 (Cont'd)
California nonetheless affect interstate commerce. In any event,
•however, the applicable laws and regulations which defendants
have violated apply without regard to interstate or intrastate
impact.
/////
/////
-39-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
4678
2/
part of the courts has been overcome in the last twenty years.—
It is clear that courts have not hesitated to fashion
appropriate relief when a governing body or a public or private
agency I refuses to act to protect health, safety, and rights
accorded. citizens by law. One of the most striking examples is
in the area of prison reform where courts have been reluctant to
review practices by penitentiary systems, parole boards, and other
agencies responsible for incarceration and rehabilitation of con-
victed criminals. Nevertheless, when prisoners in two Arkansas
prisons made showings- that the prison system failed to provide
rehabilitation and operated in a fashion which militated against
their reform, the court ordered appropriate relief. The relief
was immediate and sweeping: • v-
Respondents will be ordered to made a prompt and
reasonable start toward eliminating the conditions
that have caused the court to condemn the system
and to prosecute their efforts with all reasonable
diligence to completion as soon as possible. The
lives, safety, and health of human beings, to say
nothing of their dignity, are at stake. The start
must be prompt, and the prosecution must be vigorous.
The handwriting is on the wall, and it ought not to
require a Daniel to read it. Unless conditions at
the penitentiary farms are brought up to a level of
constitutional tolerability , the farms can no longer
be used for the confinement of convicts.-..
At the moment respondents will be ordered to submit
to the court and to counsel for petitioners not later
than April 1 of this year a report and plan showing
what, if anything, they have done up to that time
to meet the requirements of the court, what they plan
See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction v. Braxton, 326 F.2d 616
(5th Cir. 1964) , in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a district
court holding requiring court approval of plans for faculty
assignment, budget allocations, actual spending, employment con-
tracts, construction projects, curricula, and other policies and
programs. In Kelley v. Altheimer, Ark. Public School Dist. #22,
378 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1967) the court sets out a plan of operatio
the school is required to follow, including filling of vacancies,
salaries, construction equalization and transportation. See also,
Sanders v. Ellington, 288 F.Supp. 937 (M.D. Tenn. 1968);
United States v. Cook County School District #151, 404 F.2d 1125
(7th Cir. 1968)
///
32 ///
-40-
4679
to do, and when they plan to do it.
If the initial report is approved, the court may
require additional reports from time to time and
may require specific information in certain areas.
If the initial report is not approved, it will then
become necessary for the court to consider what
specific steps it will take to implement its
declarations... Holt v. Sarver, 38 L.W. 2463 (D.C.
Ark. Feb., 1970) "37"
Some other areas in which courts have acted in granting similar
affirmative relief are as follows:
1. Rate Setting— ICC v. Aberdeen RR, 393 U.S. 87 (1968) [the
Supreme Court reversed an ICC decision relating to computation
of rail freights and directed different calculations using
comparative cost instead of territorial average cost, and required
determinating on commuter deficits, interchanging cars, and empty
freight car return ratios to be handled differently. The Court
quotes from Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156,
that administrative expertise must not be allowed to become "a
monster which rules with no practical limits on its discretion
. . .We cannot bridge the gap by blind reliance on expertise
which in this instance would be a mere assertion that no difference
means a substantial difference." (at pp. 92 and 95)]
2. Housing — Gautreaux v. Chicago Public Housing Authority, 37
L.W. 2482 (Feb. 10, 1969) [Text of court's order not set out with
opinion reported at 296 F.Supp. 907] [Low-income residents of
Chicago brought suit against the City of Chicago to enjoin site
locations and waiting list requirements which were out of compli-
ance with law. The detailed Court Order requires the Housing
Authority to build 75% of all new public housing in specified
areas of the city, requires 700 new houses in one area before any
building elsewhere, and requires in 30 days submission of a plan
setting out new tenant policies.]
«
3., Employment — Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047 (5th Cir.
1969) " [To deal with future hiring practices the Court further
"ordered the development of objective, trade-related membership
criteria and procedures, excluding as criteria relationship to or
recommendation by present members or other persons employed in
the trade, and excluding also any membership vote. The order
additionally required Local 53 to objectively determine the size
of its membership with reference to the number of skilled asbestos
workers reasonably calculated to meet present and future industry
needs in its geographic area.]
4. Reapportionment — Connor v. Johnson, 265 F.Supp. 492 (S.D. Miss
1967 3-judge court), aff'd 386 U.S. 483, 87 S.Ct. 1174 (1967).
["There is no alternative. . .The equity powers of this court
must be exercised and we must proceed to order a reapportionment
. . .After exhaustive deliberation, including the consideration
of all reasonable alternatives which have occurred to us, we now
proceed to lay out districts for the election of Senators and
Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature so that the
2,178,141 inhabitants will as nearly as possible be equally rep-
resented in compliance with the one man one vote principle. . .
Id. at p. 494.]
Chavis v. Whit comb, 38 L.W. 2104 (S.D. Indiana July, 1969) .
[The court struck down multi-member districts, holding that large
-41-
4680
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 |
17
18 1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Farmworkers have long been the most neglected employee
group in the United States, excluded from benefits now thought to
be automatic by most Americans ; It is particularly distressing
when protection is given them — as by the Wagner-Peyser Act — and
State and Federal officials not only refuse to enforce the law,
i
but also adopt practices which serve only to depress wages and
.... /
working conditions .
We respectfully urge this Court to enter the order as
prayed for. ' . _ -
Dated: April 16, 1970
Respectfully submitted,
GLICK, GNAIZDA, REYNOSO
MC CASE, YEGH.IAYAN, ABASCAL,
ALTSHULER, BRENNAN, DELEVETT,
FRETZ, LIVINGSTON, POWELL,
YNOSTROZA, and WILSON
By_
Bv.
' Martin R. Glick
Robert L. Gnaizda
3 (Cont'd.)
ghetto areas in Marion County, Indiana must be separately repre-
sented even though the multi -member districts technically accorded
one-man, one-vote representation. The Court asked the Governor
to call a Special Session of the Indiana General Assembly to
draft districts in compliance with the Court's opinion.]
5. Zoning— In re Girsh, 38 L.W. 2465 (Pa. S.Ct. Feb. 1970) [The
court required that the city zoning law include permission for
construction of apartments.]
6. Police Assignments — Baker v. St. Petersburg, 400 F.2d 294 (C.A.
5, 1968) [Black and white police officers reassigned by court
due to past situation where black officers policed black areas
only.]
7. Fair Labor Standards — Fagot v. F.lintkote, 38 L.W. 2265 (E.D.
La. 1969) [In spite of Fair Labor Standards Act provisions settinc
out certain remedies and not mentioning any civil action remedy
for employees, the court held as a matter of equity that such
civil action should be permitted in the public interest. ]
///
32 ///
-42-
4681
Attachment A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
250 FARM WORKERS, et al. ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRETARY
OF LABOR, et al. ,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. C-70 481 AJZ
PROPOSED ORDER
The matter having come on regularly for hearing on
April 22, 1970, Martin R. Glick and Robert L. Gnaizda appearing
for plaintiffs, William Bradford, appearing for State defendants
and David R. Drdan appearing for federal defendants; and good
cause appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants be restrained and
enjoined during the pendancy of this action from:
A. Refusing (1) to require and record on each employer
order form information concerning health and sanitation facilities
and pesticide use at the job site, (2) to post in a conspicuous
place this information along with information concerning wage
offered, anticipated job duration, and the approximate location
of the job, and (3) to reject any job order out of compliance
with law.
B. Refusing to verify wage and working condition
information received from employers by checking these conditions
during routine field visits, by declining to serve employers
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 11
4682
J found out of compliance with law, until the unlawful condition
is corrected, and by developing a plan to suspend service to
employers found to be repeated violators.
VC. Providing any service to farm labor contractors or
other persons who receive any fee or charge for providing workers
*| to another.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
D. Accepting any order listing a wage below the pre-
vailing wage, including any piece rate order which does not
guarantee that each worker placed will receive no less than the
prevailing wage.
E. Refusing to form a state advisory council and
advisory councils in local communities served, such committee to
be fairly and equally representative of the interests of both
farm employers and employees.
F. Refusing to require minimum job durations and pay
on orders placed, depending upon the nature of the order, but
not to be less than 8 hours on pool placements and one week on
regular jobs which are not cancelled by the employer prior to.
the time the referred employee arrives at the job site.
Dated:
United States District Court Judge
-2-
4683
ATTACHMENT B
SUMHBiRY OF PLAINTIFFS' SEVENTY-THREE EXHIBITS
Set forth below are brief summaries of plaintiffs'
exhibits, almost "all of which are affidavits. (A star (*) is
affixed, to any that are not affidavits.) The summary begins with
those thir'ty-three exhibits submitted subsequent to the
il
filing of defendants' briefs, and ends with those forty exhibits
previously submitted with the Complaint and Order to Show Cause. f
Ex A0- Affidavit from California's second largest strawberry
grower contending that only growers that violate the law or pay
boor wages use the Farm Labor Office and asking for either the
termination of the Farm Labor Office or for joint grower-farm
worker control.
Ex AP- Affidavit from a Catholic Priest, in disguise, that one
im3nth~ago (March 19, 1970) he personally investigated the Salinas
Farm Labor Office and was referred to a large grower who did not
provide toilets ar drinking water and that the bus in which he
was transported with nineteen women and men was a dangerously
defective bus.
Ex AQ*- Farm Labor Office leaflet dated February, 1970, given
to 'farm workers. It unequivocally promises seventeen guarantees
as to working conditions and unequivocally tells the worker to
complain to the Farm Labor Office if dissatisfied-
Ex AR*- 1968 Typhoid Fever outbreak among farm workers ^Im-
perial County due to many of the fields in Imperial County _not
complying with the health and safety code regulations. . . Typhoid
is transmitted by feces and urine, Singh [Defendant s Sanitarian,
see Def. Ex 9] explained. Unclean hands brought about by lack
of facilities in the field will . . . [transmit] the typhoid,
(March 25, 1968, statement of Singh).
Ex AS: Sworn testimony of specialist in epidemics that the
absence of toilets causes typhoid fever, hepatitus, etc. , and
"could give rise to epidemic spread of disease, and constitutes
a grave potential danger to the health of the consumer.
Ex AT- Sworn testimony of Monterey-Salinas physician that the
"absence of toilet and hand-washing facilities for field workers
picking fruit and vegetable crops constitute a potential health
hazard to the eventual consumer" and to the field workers.
Ex AU: Sworn testimony of the senior physician for the Monterey
County (Salinas) Hospital that the absence of toilets and proper
drinking water can result in the transmission of typhoid fever and.
tuberculosis.
Ex AV- Affidavit of Santa Clara farm worker harassed by State
investigator. Visited three times at home and ordered to appear
at Farm Labor Office to sign affidavit which he did while affirming
his objection to Farm Labor Office.
Ex AW: Affidavit of Imperial County Sanitarian contending that
he' is understaffed and that the ideal agency to enforce field
4684
conditions is the Farm Labor Office.
Ex AX •
-- ' Affidavit of Stanislaus County Sanitarian stating that
the Farm Labor Office has the expertise to enforce, and is the
Ideal agency to enforce, field conditions.
Ex- AY: Afridav4t of California sanitarian stating that the Farm
Labor Office is the most appropriate agency for the enforcement of
field sanitation laws.
Ex^AZ: Sworn testimony of Imperial County field foreman and bus
driver that he is permitted by the Farm Labor Office to pick up
workers despite driving his bus in violation of State safety-
requirements — no brakes — and that he was fired for complaining
about, unsafe buses.
Ex» BA; Affidavit of Kings County farm worker confirming his
prior affidavit as to being referred to unlawful jobs by the Farm
Labor Service, documenting such referrals by attaching State
referral card, and alleging that the State investigator became
angered when he asked for permission to contact his lawyer (CRLA)
and even after such request to contact his lawyer the State inves-
tigator insisting on his signing an affidavit without an attorney
being present. ~" ' '
Ex- BB; Affidavit setting forth anxiety and confusion caused
to Kings County Spanish-speaking farm worker by State investigator.
Ex: BC: Affidavit of Madera farm worker stating that despite the
State investigator, everything he previously stated as to the
Farm Labor Office's- bad jobs is true and he so informed the
investigator.
Ex- BD: Affidavit of Madera farm worker stating that despite the
State investigator everything he previously stated as to the poor
conditions offered by the Farm Labor Office was true and he so
Informed the investigator.
{■*♦ BE: Affidavit of Santa Barbara resident Miguel Canas that
he took an independent survey of local farm workers and all
favored CRLA to represent them in getting decent wages and-
working conditions (70 for CRLA, none for Farm Labor Office).
■Ex- BF; Affidavit of President of four-county farm worker group
stating that his organization in February, 1970, complained about
the Farm Labor Office and asked CRLA to file suit to close the
Farm Labor Office.
Ex- BG: Affidavit of Santa Barbara farm worker stating that he
circulated a petition in February, 1970, to abolish the Farm Labor
Office and that virtually every farm worker he showed it to
eagerly and immediately signed it.
Ex- BH: Affidavit of President of Imperial County Mexican-
American Political Association asking-in February, 1970, for
CRLA to force the Farm Labor Office to provide decent jobs or to
have it done away with.
Ex- BI; Cannery-Grower contract requiring full list of pesticides
used, including dates, locations, quantity and type.
Ex- BJ; Affidavit of Imperial County farm worker stating that the
Farm Labor Office refers him to out-of-county jobs at wages less
than promised and under false working conditions.
4685
Sworn testimony of community worker that 1-2 bins of apples
Is the most that a good worker can pick off the ground in
an 8 hour day, thus yielding a maximum pay of $1.00 an
hour per worker.
Affidavit clarifying two previous affidavits, one for
plaintiffs and one for defendants. The affiant had
"absolutely no complaint" when using the Farm Labor Service
as an "employer, but did have a problem when he was seeking
a job for himself.
Affidavit of Latin American Social Organization president
stating that his affidavit for defendants that the Farm
Labor office helps youth was correct but stating that
adult workers have trouble getting decent jobs from the
Farm Labor Service.
Affidavit of VISTA work'er from Connecticut independently
verifying the truth of the original Lerma and Marin
affidavits which defendants sought to cloud.
Affidavits of two farmworkers corroborating original
Lerma and Marin affidavits and Exhibit BN.
Exhibit of Farm Labor Office employee who filed affidavits
for defendants endorsing as workable and desirable sections
of the "Fair Employment Plan" sought by California farm
workers.
Affidavit of farmworker referred by Farm Labor Office
staff to ranch owned by Farm Labor Office staff.
The job was inadequate pay and insufficient work.
Affidavit of farmworker referred to ranch owned by lady
in Farm Labor Office who sent him there. He found no
work available when he got there.
Affidavit of farmworker sent to non-existent job. The
farmworker complained and was told by the Farm Labor
office manager that he was a "trouble maker" and was
blacklisted.
Affidavit of Napa County farmworker referred to $9.50
a bin job and paid only $7.50. There were no toilets
or drinking water.
Affidavit of investigator checking on Ex BT , above,
and finding no toilets or drinking water and finding
that grower was still promising $9.50 per bin.
Affidavit of community worker-investigator that most
of Farm Labor Office staff members were farmers and
requirements of job guarantee they will always be farmers.
4686
SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' PRIOR FORTY (40) EXHIBITS
(All of Which Are Affidavits, Unless Noted By a *)
j . .
Ex A Frank Valenzuela, former Farm Labor Office employee and
farm labor contractor, setting forth specific allegations
that Farm Labor Office is grower-controlled, anti-farm '
worker and should be closed or radically reformed since
i% presently depresses wages and working conditions.
Ex B The Fair Employment Plan.*
Ex C Farm worker President of Plaintiff San Benito Consumers'
Coop, setting forth 75-0 vote by farm worker membership
"to close the farm labor office because of its failure to
serve farm workers."
Ex D List of 250 farm worker plaintiffs from ten California
counties.*
Ex E- Santa Clara farm worker alleging Farm Le.bor Office
referred him to non-existent jobs and to jobs in violation
of state laws and refused to honor his complaints about
- these non-jobs.
Ex F Santa Clara farm worker being referred to large company
1,000 miles from home, being paid one dollar an hour,
complaining to Farm Labor Office and being told by it
that "Salinas Strawberries was very strong; that the
Farm Labor Office couldn't do anything [and] that Salinas
Strawberries had many lawyers and could put us in jail."
Ex G • Santa Clara farm worker referred to non-existent jobs by
the Farm Labor Office,
Ex H Mexican-American documentation of Salinas Farm Labor Office'
refusal to provide drinking water or usable toilets to
its day haul farm workers, representing 90% of all job place-
ments.
Ex I Mexican-'American documentation of 1,869 health and
sanitation violations by growers using the Salinas Farm
Labor Office.
Ex J Imperial County farm worker study of 125 Imperial Farm
Labor Office referrals. Ninety-five per cent of
workers referred to growers who refused to provide toilets.
Only 3% of the 125 workers felt the Farm Labor Office ever
tried to assist them; all demanded changes and many re-
ported being laughed at or abused when they reported
violations to the Farm Labor Office.
Ex K Imperial farm worker and forty others sent 2,000 miles to a
1969 Green Giant Co. job at 36 cents an hour and being
lauqhed at when he complained to Farm Labor Office.
Ex L Imperial farm worker being referred in 1968, 1,000 miles
- to a non-existent Green Giant job, complaining to Farm
Labor Office and being threatened "to send me to jail" if
I did not "stop saying such things."
4687
Imperial farm worker being referred, in 1967, with 260
male and female workers, 1,500 miles to a non-existent
Green Giant job, complaining to Farm Labor Office but
"they didn't pay any attention to me."
February 11, 1970 statement by Farm Labor Office super-
visor that primary purpose of Office is to harvest the
cifops. ' -
Sonoma County Growers Association (350 members) allegation
that Farm Labor Office "was being run very inefficiently."
Santa Rosa Farm Labor Office manager states that all of
the men working for him had "grower backgrounds."
Sonoma Farm Labor Contractor's allegations that the Farm
Labor Office produces phony, inflated job statistics and
that it should be close'd.
Sonoma farm worker referred by the Farm Labor Office to a
job paying fifty cents an hour, . w
Napa community worker allegations that farm workers receive
the lowest wages on jobs secured through the Farm Labor
Office.
Napa community worker alleging Farm Labor Office referrals
of workers to growers who do not provide toilets or
drinking water,
Madera farm worker referred to non-existent jobs by
Farm Labor Office.
Madera farm worker treated discourteously by Farm Labor
Office, and referred to growers who do not provide toilets
or drinking water and pay less than the promised wage.
Madera farm worker referred to growers who do not provide
toilets or drinking water. ■ •
Kings County farm worker family referred to non-existent
job 125 miles away and to grower who paid 20% less than
promised wage ard Farm Labor Office refused to take any
action.
Kings County farm worker referred to non-existent job, to
a job at substantially less than promised wage, and to
growers who refuse to provide^ toilets. ■ •
Los Angeles farm worker referred, with 36 other farm
workers, to job 100 miles away, received only 3 hours
work and told no work available next day.
Stanislaus County farm worker referred to job paying 65
cents an hour and grower had no toilets or drinking
water.
' Stanislaus County farm worker referred to job paying 35
cents an hour and complained to Farm Labor Office and told
"they had no other jobs."
4688
Ex. AC Stanislaus County farm worker never referred to a job
where grower had toilets or drinking water and finds best
jobs on his own.
Ex AD Stanislaus County farm worker never given choice of jobs
and always referred to jobs without toilets or drinking
water.
Ex AE Stanislaus farm worker referred to substandard jobs and
denied a choice of jobs.
Ex AF Yuba community worker allegations that Farm Labor Office
refuses to even telephone grower to check on toilets and
refuses to provide a choice of jobs.
Ex AG Santa Barbara community worker allegations that Farm
Labor Office refuses to check or verify working
conditions.
Ex AH Santa Barbara farm worker refused job as janitor by Farm
Lator Office, forced to accept substandard farm work,
and requesting the termination of the Farm Labor Office.
Ex AI Santa Barbara farm worker referred to jobs without toilets
or water and to the worst jobs.
Ex AJ Santa Barbara farm worker referred to the worst jobs by
the Farm Labor Office and alleging he gets better pay when-
ever he finds jobs on his own.
Ex AK,
AL & AM Letters of February, 1970 to local Farm Labor Offices
requesting information on toxic pesticide use by growers:
Farm Labor Office refused to provide any information.
Ex AN Salinas Valley community worker informed by Salinas Farm
Labor Office that working conditions, such as toilets and
drinking water or length of job, were not a matter of
concern to the Office, and were a matter solely between
the worker and the employer.
4689
IN THE U.S. District COURT
88B$ffi&QE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
250 FARM WORKERS , et al . ,
plaintiff,
No.
C-70 4 81 AJZ
vs.
GEORGE SHULTZ, U.S. SECRE- ' lnYlC
BARY OF LABOR, et al. ,
Defendant
of San Francisco'
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the countj^jtfasesaJdJf I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within above entitled action. I served the within REPLY BRIEF AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION in this
(Her. Insert name of pat-cr served)
action by personally delivering to and leaving with the following persons in the county of San Francisco
State of California, on the date set opposite their respective names, a true copy thereof, to-wit:
feavid R..„0rdan 450 Golden Gate Ave., Room 16201, SF April 16, 1970
Name Plac* Data
William Bradford 6000 State Building, SF '• April 16, 1970
Nun. Place Date
Name place Date
/ certify (or declare), under penalty of perjury,' that the foregoing is true and correct.
_ , . April 16, 1970 _ San Francisco *.j»_j
(dttt) (pUut)
(Signature)
neys puts, supply porm no. u 'proof of service forms, being signed under penalty of perjury, do not require notarization.
4600
Mr. Gnaizda. I would just like to preface my remarks with one |i
comment.
It is a nonpartisan attack. The attack is institutional rather thanii
personal. I think Secretary of Labor Wirtz failed and I think Sec-
retary of Labor Shultz is failing in his ability to deal with the problem
of migratory workers. I have submitted prepared testimony, but I
would like to depart from the prepared testimony in large measure,1
although I will restrict myself to the theme of the prepared testimony.
Basically my theme is that the migrant farmworker would be better
off without present so-called Government assistance. The Farm Labor
Service, which is 100 percent funded by the Federal Government at
the rate of $21 million a year, is an example of the worst type of
benign neglect, I am not even sure it is benign neglect of the migrant, I
It seems to me it is unrealistic to ever assume they any so-called I
neutral program can be successful when it attempts to help a power-
less group.
But what you have in the present situation is a very powerful
group, the growers, competing for the favors of the Farm Labor j
Service with the most powerless group ; and of course the most power-
less group has failed to compete successfully. What has occurred is
what has occurred with virtually every Federal agency. It has become
the captive of one side of the struggle.
Unfortunately the Farm Labor Service is far worse. It has not only
been captured by the growers, it is totally run by the growers almost j
exclusively for their interests.
So, the Farm Labor Service instead of eliminating or minimizing
the powerlessness of the migrant, and instead of eliminating his pov-
erty or minimizing it, in a sense accentuates the powerlessness of the
migrant and perpetuates his poverty.
I notice, Senator, in your prepared remarks of yesterday that there
was a quote from "The Grapes of Wrath" about the farmworkers'' con-
ditions. I think it is exactly parallel to today with one exception, and j
a frightening exception. That is that the grower now has the backing
of the wealthiest, most powerful corporation in America, the Labor
Department and the Federal Government, in his struggle with the
farmworkers.
Senator, you mentioned the plight of American Indians. I think
there is a parallel here with the migrant farmworker. The Farm Labor
Service in a sense is the migrant's BIA, or Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The only difference, however, is it is far worse. I would liken it to a
migrant BIA, the people the migrant is supposed to be protected from
are running that service and they have been running it very success-
fully.
In the last 15 years they have taken a quarter of billion dollars of
American taxpayers' money and they deprived the migrant worker
of at least $1 billion in lost wages, because the effect has been to depress
wages and working conditions.
I would like to focus on tha Farm Labor Service because I think it
illustrates the disparity between the rhetoric we have heard this morn-
ing and yesterday and the reality of the situation. There are four fun-
damental interrelated problems which I would like to briefly deal with.
4G01
First is the breakdown of President Nixon's theme of law and order,
and the breakdown is by the Government itself. The Labor Depart-
ment today is breaking almost every single one of its own rules and
regulations intended to protect the migrant worker. I would like to
develop that a little later.
Secondly, the Labor Department Farm Labor Service statistics call
into question all statistics which are being used for the projected needs
of the migrant worker and to assist the migrant worker. Yesterday,
Senator, you and Senator Murphy dealt with statistics and discovered
there is no basis for many of them. I would like to show that not only
is there no basis for them, but many of them are deliberate frauds in
an effort to continue funding at the present level.
Thirdly, I think the operation of the nationwide Farm Labor Ser-
vice illustrates the unlikelihood of the Government upgrading jobs
for migrants or training migrants for industrial jobs. However, my
personal view is that the migrant is well equipped to deal with mechani-
zation, if the Government would treat him in a less paternalistic way.
I think the migrant is ready and well equipped to take oyer mecha-
nized jobs. Unfortunately our society is unwilling to give him that op-
portunity. I do not think the problem is inadequate training. I think
it is totally inadequate specific opportunity.
I think the most tragic point that the operation of farm labor
service calls into question is the very question you have just raised,
Senator, the very role of the Government in assisting those with-
out power. I think history illustrates that those without power are un-
likely to ever receive it through the graciousness of government. It is
only if they have power that they will be able to successfully deal with
their problems.
I think the postal workers example that you just mentioned cer-
tainly illustrates this. I would like to briefly analyze the statistics
used by farm labor service.
One would assume the farm labor service statistics would be the
most accurate of any government agency because the farm labor
service actually deals with migrants, unlike the Agriculture Depart-
ment. I think the farm labor service's failure to provide adequate
statistics isn't due to merely inexperience or inertia. I think it is due
to active and willful indifference.
In 1966, for example, the statewide California farm labor service
alleged that it placed 134,795 workers on jobs. In 1968 this figure, ac-
cording to California farm labor service statistics, rose tenfold, or
1,000 percent; they alleged they placed 1,393,000 workers on jobs. This
occurred despite a 25-percent decline in agricultural employment in
California and it occurred despite any increase in funding of the farm
labor service. And it occurred despite the fact, I might add, that, in-
cluding migrants, at no point in California at any time of the year are
there as many as even 300,000 farmworkers.
In 1969 the bureaucracy's statistics continued their meteoric and
unexplained rise. There was a 25-percent rise in statistics in 1969,
even though agricultural employment declined another 10 percent : it
rose to 1,714,000 jobs placed by the California Farm Labor Service.
4692
They did not receive any additional funding, however. Apparently !
they are in competition with all the other farm labor services through- i
out the JSIation, which are also increasing their statistics.
Funding is based exclusively on statistics, not on quality of the iob
not on length of job, not on wages paid.
We expect by 1971— California Rural Legal Assistance— that thei
figure will be over 2 million. And there is no reason, Senator, none ati
all, to believe that by 1984, no matter what happens with mechaniza-i
tion, that the hgure will not be over 10 million.
Senator Mondale. Do you predict there will be a 1984 «
Mr. Gnaizda. I predict that will be the last year.
I would like to briefly analyze the quality of statistics, because they'
are far more alarming than what I would say are these somewhat in-
flated statistics.
The farm labor sendee admitted in sworn testimony that 15 out
of every 16 of its 1.7 million job placements were of unknown, un-i
named farmworkers. That is, 1,554,578 of their placements in 1969 Were
of workers whose names they did not know. They don't know the sexj
ol the worker; they don't know his age. They don't know his social!
security number. They don't know his first or last name and they do
not even know what nation he comes from.
The remainder, the one in 16 remainder, are called quality place-
ments, but they admitted in sworn testimony that in about half the
cases they don't even take an employment application of the worker, i
They may have his social security number, although they may not for !
other members of his family, and each member of the family is treated
as a different statistic and treated as a quality placement.
Second, the farm labor service admitted that in at least 15 out
of every 16 job placements, the maximum duration of the job is 1 day '
and in many cases is just a half hour. It also admitted, to our great |
surprise, and to the Senators' great interest in the light of the border
problem, that one in every four placements, or well over 400,000 place-
ments, were of non- Americans. That is, Mexicans living in Mexico,
both temporarily and permanently, who came across the border to get
a job.
I will later on mention how that is done, primarily through one
office. The farm labor service also admitted— and I think this pre-
vails throughout the Nation— that one worker— you mentioned the mi- j
grant worker does not count at all, that is not true as far as farm !
labor service is concerned — really counts.
His only major contribution to this Government is a statistic and ;
they admitted that one farmworker can count for 250 different job
placements a year, which means over a lifetime he can be responsible
for 5,000 or 6,000 job placements. And if he has a family of five, he
may be responsible for 20,000 job placements.
Every single day a farmworker goes out on a day haul, he is counted |
as a separate statistic, even though he goes to exactly the same grower.
So. 15 out of every 16 of the Farm Labor Service statistics do not even i
refer to different workers and that is how we can explain the fact there
are more placements than there are workers, because the placements j
do not relate to workers. They are just a statistic.
4693
It was also admitted, for example, that even one grower can make ,
a major contribution to the Farm Labor Service. He can be responsible
for thousands of placements a year, even though he may only hire 10 or
; 20 workers or although he may not be covered for unemployment in-
i surance, because he has less than eight workers for 26 weeks.
When a father of a family of six gives his name and is sent out to a
job by Farm Labor Service at 8 a.m. in the morning, that is counted as
six placements, even if the farmworker quits in a half hour, because the
grower lied to him about the wage. If the grower then calls the Farm
Labor Service and says, "I need six workers," the Farm Labor Serv-
I ice will send another six workers that morning and that will count as
six more placements. If those six quit because the grower lied about
I the wages again, the Farm Labor Service admitted it would send
I another six workers that would count as six more placements.
It also admitted over a 20-day period many growers might receive
six different workers each day, because the farmworker is unhappy
I with the job and 6 times 20 is 120 job placements. The Farm Labor
I Service says every statistic is treated equally.
No statistic is treated differently than another. I only wish, of course,
that the same could be said for the farmworker and the grower.
I think the Calexico border town office in Imperial County illustrates
the problem. It has a population of 9,000. Nevertheless, it contributes
more to the California Farm Labor Service statistics than any other
city. It produced 463,000 job placements last year; 80 percent of them
were of non-Americans. They were Mexicans residing in Mexico both
temporarily and permanently who crossed the border each day.
But the Farm Labor Service said they do not know if they ever got
to the job, because they do not count them when they get to the job.
They count them when they get on the bus. Frequently the bus may
break down, but the Farm Labor Service says it does not have the
personnel to check and see if the bus breaks down. So they just count
them on the bus for administrative convenience.
Senator Mondale. These Farm Labor offices on the Mexican border,
like Calexico in southern California, and in Texas, every morning
count the number of people coming across that bridge to get on trucks,
buses, and ship them up north, and each one of those are employment
figures, and later reflected in Labor Department statistics?
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct.
Senator Mondale. I assume many of those people coming across
the border go to the same farmer every day, but every morning it is a
new placement?
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct. We know they go to the same farmer
in Imperial County. Imperial County is now the richest agricultural
county in the Nation, but it only has 600 farmers. They have varying
crops, so on any one day the Farm Labor Service probably sends work-
ers out to 30 or 40 growers.
The Farm Labor Service there stated that they know the names of
only one-tenth of 1 percent of all the workers they referred out to job
placements in 1969. In other words, they had the names of 530 of 463,-
000 job placements. That is all they had.
4694
Very interestingly, a fee is charged to these farmworkers. The Farm
Labor Service permits farm labor contractors to act as middlemen to
charge a fee to growers who get Farm Labor Service farmworkers. A
fee is charged in approximately one-half of the cases. This operates
in the following fashion.
A farm labor contractor brings a bus to the Farm Labor Service
day haul center. He might bring two or three buses and load them up
with migrant workers. Say he has 80 on two buses. He drives to the
grower and produces the workers for an 8-hour day.
The grower pays 25 cents.a head per hour. So that for each farm-
worker the farm contractor gets $2 times 80 workers, or $160 a day.
This is prohibited by Federal law. It is very specific. No person may
use the Farm Labor Service if he charges a fee to either the employer
or the employee. Nevertheless, the Farm Labor Service admitted, and
they said they see nothing wrong with it, that farm labor contractors
charge a fee.
They have some other interesting statistics to bolster the need for
the Farm Labor Service. And I think the statistics are impressive.
The only thing I can say is I do not understand how with only 2,000
staff members in the Nation they are able to keep all these statistics.
They have a statistic called office contacts. In one little branch office
in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, in August of 1969 the office produced
4,900 office contacts. They produced only four regular jobs, but 4,900
contacts and 1,000 job referrals.
We asked them what that meant by an office contact. Jestingly I said,
"What if someone came in who was not a farmworker and he was lost
and said where is the restroom ? Would you count that as an office
contact," and they said, "Yes, because it took up office time."
I did not ask this question, but presumably if the mailman came
and delivered letters — need I say any more? It was very interesting
that despite the statistics (despite the great increase from year to
year from 134,000 in 1966 to 1.3 million in 1968 to 1.7 million in 1969)
the Farm Labor Service in California proudly states that it did not
produce one counseling or one testing statistic.
No farmworker in California is given any counseling or any test-
ing. Under every category where it says "counseling" or "testing,"
they list absolutely zero.
But there is an explanation for it. Despite the Federal regulations,
and there are four of them and they are very clear, stating that you
have to receive counseling and you have to receive testing if appro-
bate, the Farm Labor Service has an excuse. I think it is a fairly
interesting one.
Since they do not have Spanish-speaking personnel in some of the
offices, it would not do any good. In the Santa Kosa office they have 15
employees ; 60 percent of the people coming in speak Spanish. None of
the 15 in the office can speak Spanish.
Senator Mondale. Where is this, where 60 percent of them are
Spanish speaking ?
Mr. Gnaizda. In Sonoma County, Napa County north of San Fran-
cisco. There are plenty of Mexican Americans in those counties and
many are resident and many speak Spanish.
4695
The manager said he knew how to say "Yes" and "No" in Spanish.
"We did not test him on that. He has only been there for 26 years.
Incidentally, that office, according to the testimony of the manager,
is absolutely perfect. We asked him if there was any room for improve-
ment of any kind and he said "None." We asked him if he had been
criticized by anyone above or below him and he said "Absolutely
never."
In summary, what you have in the California State Farm Labor
Service is 449 personnel, funded with $3.5 million, placing workers or
a total, according to their statistics, of only 9,395 real jobs, that is,
regular jobs. However, they admit that even of these 9,300 so-called
real jobs many were duplications, because frequently a worker would
be sent to a real job that did not pan out.
He would be counted, but some were for only a half-day or so. So
in summary, you can say about the California Farm Labor Service
that each staff member per year produced 20 real jobs, or one-tenth of
one so-called real job per staff day. I don't know if there is anything
more that I need say about the statistics.
I would like to talk about law and order. There are a number of man-
datory regulations, the purpose of which is to assist the farmworker
and to protect him. Basically none of them are being obeyed at all. I
would like to talk about 11 particular violations that you raised in
large measure yesterday.
No. 1, advisory councils. It is not permissive. It is not prefatory to
have them. It is mandatory. The language says "shall." The Labor
Department, however, has informed me that despite my legal back-
ground, that I do not imderstand what "shall" means. "Shall" means
"may."
So perhaps when the Senate rewrites legislation, it might want to
say "shall" means "shall" and not "may."
Senator Mondale. Which advisory council are you talking about?
Mr. Gnaizda. Statewide and local. They are mandatory.
Senator Mondale. Do we have them ?
Mr. Gnaizda. No, sir ; none.
Senator Mondale. The law provides that migrants should be in-
cluded on those councils ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Yes ; but not specifically. It talks about representation
from all groups. But apparently the migrant farmworker is not sup-
posed to benefit.
Senator Mondale. But in any event the law requires creating tiles*1
committees, and yet they do not exist.
Mr. Gnaizda. They do not. Secondly, the law requires counselinp
It is mandatory.
Third, the law requires testing. There is none of any kind.
Fourth, the Federal regulation talks specifically about the obligation
of the Farm Labor Service to upgrade the farmworker. Instead, they
downgrade the farmworker's job. Specifically they try to fill the worst
jobs first for good reason. They are the hardest to fill.
The law prohibits anyone from making a profit from the use of the
Farm Labor Service, especially middlemen or farm labor contractors.
It says no one shall receive a fee directly or indirectly from the em-
4696
ployer or employee. Nevertheless, somewhere between one-third and
one-half of all the placements in California result in a fee to a farm
labor contractor.
The regulations are clear. The longest job duration is to be the job
to which the farmworker is to be sent. However, he is generally sent
to the job of the shortest duration. The reason is simple. That will
produce a higher annual statistic.
If you can send a farmworker to a new job each day, he will count as
a new statistic each day. There is no value to sending a farmworker
to a job that lasts for months. That only counts as one job placement
The law says specifically that the farmworker shall be sent only to
those growers who pay the highest prevailing wages in the area. In-
stead, they are sent to jobs paying the lowest prevailing wages.
Senator Mondale. Is that a State or Federal regulation %
Mr. Gnaizda. Federal, and adopted by the State.
Senator Mondale. Farm labor offices are supposed to send available
workers, first, to the highest paying employers ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Right. And they are not permitted to send workers to
jobs that pay below the minimum.
Senator Mondale. Below the minimum wage, or below the prevail
ing wage?
Mr. Gnaizda. Prevailing is higher than the minimum, presumably
In California that is the case. Very few growers deliberately violate I
the minimum wage when they pay a fixed rate. However, it is violated
on the piece rate and is responsible for farmworkers earning less than
$1.65.
The grower submits an order for a piece rate, he submits an un-
realistically low piece rate, but on its face it does not look like it is
below the minimum. In the Santa Rosa office it was admitted they
received piece rates to pick apples at the rate of, for example, $4 a bin.
It has been proven that there is no farmworker anywhere in California
who can pick in an 8-hour day more than two bins of apples. That
would be 3,000 pounds. So if you are paying $4 a bin, you earn $8 foi
an 8-hour day or a dollar an hour.
Senator Mondale. Does Federal minimum wage law only require
that the minimum be paid where an hourly rate is in effect, and if a
piece rate is in effect, the wage law has no application ?
Mr. Gnaizda. It has application as to the piece rate. You have to
show that at least 80 percent of your workers earned the minimum
wage through the piece rate. However, Federal regulations for the
Farm Labor Service are clear: Everyone must earn the minimum
wage. No one can earn below it. The regulation goes beyond the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Senator Mondale. Is it your testimony that the Farm Labor Service
in California is, in fact, ignoring those requirements ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Absolutely, unequivocally.
Senator Mondale. And is the Farm Labor Service prohibited from
sending workers to farms which pay less than the minimum wage ?
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct, and it is their testimony they never do.
It is the testimony of every farmworker that he earns far below the
4607
minimum wage, although no employers admit that they pay a specified
wage of less than $1.65 an hour.
Next, the violations of the regulations protecting against health and
sanitation. Violations are clear. No one can be sent to a grower who
violates any health or sanitation law. However, the Farm Labor Serv-
ice refuses to obey these laws and openly sends workers to growers
who violate health and sanitation laws.
Eighthly, there is a prohibition against sending farmworkers to
growers who endanger the health of farmworkers. For example, in the
pesticide area. Even though the Farm Labor Service has a statistic
available to it that one in every six farmworkers is injured due to
pesticides in California every year — that is, 37,500 farmworkers are
injured annually due to pesticides — the Farm Labor Service has taken
the position that it is not a matter of any concern to it, that the problem
of pesticides is a problem between the worker and the grower and not
something the Farm Labor Service should intercede in.
There are two other violations of Federal regulations. One is the
blacklisting of workers. The Farm Labor Service blacklists workers
who are considered by growers to have unacceptable attitudes, who
complain about lack of promised wages or lack of toilets or drinking
water. However, the Farm Labor Service admitted that although it
had a blacklist of workers, it has no comparable list of growers against
whom violations are filed.
There is a very good and satisfactory bureaucratic explanation for
this. The Farm Labor Service stated it never records any complaints
made against growers. If a worker complains, it goes unrecorded. So
from a bureaucratic standpoint it could not compile a blacklist of
growers.
Senator Mondale. Let's go back to the blacklist. Do you have direct
evidence that they will accept an employer's blacklist ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir, the sworn testimony of Milton Eisley, the
manager of the Santa Rosa office, taken in early April 1970.
Senator Mondale. A grower will bring in a list of people he does
not want back because they have complained about lack of toilets ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Farm Labor Service was evasive about it and refused
to turn over their records, but the manager stated that they have
names of workers that they keep on a list whom they consider unde-
sirable workers. And that these workers would, therefore, not be
referred out to jobs; but they do not have such a list of undesirable
growers and even though they receive complaints by workers against
growers, they do not record any of the complaints so they would
never be able from one day to another to know how many complaints
were issued against any particular grower.
Senator Mondale. If a worker came in and said, "I was only paid 60
cents an hour. I worked hard. Everybody in that field made 60 cents
an hour maximum.-' The Farm Labor Service would not record that,
but instead would strike this person from the referral list?
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct.
Senator Mondale. But if that same farmer came in and said, "A
farmworker named Lopez complained because we did not have a field
36-513 O— 71— pt. 7B 12
4608
toilet." The official might write that man's name down, and not refer
him for any work ?
Mr. Gnaizda. They said they would require three complaints before
they would abandon him. Three strikes and you are out.
We believe this type of blacklist is banned by Federal regulations.
It certainly ought to be banned on ethical and moral grounds, cer-
tainly until there is equal treatment between the grower and the
worker.
The farmworker is willing to run the risk of being personally
blacklisted if the grower runs the same ri >k.
The last major violation, is the failure of the Farm Labor Service
to serve both groups. It is supposed tc serve the grower and farm-
worker. The testimony is that the Farm 1 iabor Service people regularly
meet with the growers and never meet vvith farmworkers and see no
need to meet with farmworkers.
In addition, it is interesting that it was admitted during the dep-
ositions that growers staff the Farm Labor Service. For example, in
one office all the primary staff members are growers and they send
workers out to their own ranches.
Senator Mondale. Go through that again.
Mr. Gnaizda. Let us take the Sonoma County Farm Labor Office,
for example. All the permanent employees, as opposed to seasonal
employees, are persons directly associated with agriculture.
Senator Mondale. But most of them are civil service, aren't they ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, they are unsuccessful growers or wives of growers.
Senator Mondale. And they may be drawn from local communities,
but they will be civil service ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Right.
Senator Mondale. They are permanent year-round employees ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Right ; for example, the testimony was one staff mem-
ber made approximately 40 different referrals to her own ranch during
the year 1969. On many of the occasions the minimum wage was not
paid, because it was subverted through a piece rate and the manager
said he had no idea whether even that staff member complied with
elementary California State health sanitation laws, such as the require-
ment to provide toilets and drinking water.
There are two other points I wanted to mention.
Senator Mondale. And in California you have no evidence that
farm labor offices hire seasonal farmworkers as office employees during
peak season ?
Mr. Gnaicda. They do not. They hire many retired military people.
Senator Mondale. Do they hire special help during harvest season ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Through civil service. I will say this for California.
It has made more of an effort in terms of securing Spanish-speaking
persons than most other agencies, but they cannot function without
them. That is the reason. The statistics show they cannot get workers
together without someone speaking Spanish.
When they go to a bus, they say to the farm labor contractor, "How
many workers?" They don't count them, so it is self-preservation.
But they do have a significant number and it is increasing. It is shock-
4699
ing, however, that any office that serves 60 percent Spanish-speaking
persons would have none, as is the case with the Santa Rosa office. They
are not chosen from the farmworking community because of attitudes.
It is important to have what is considered a proper grower attitude
and persons who have had nonproper attitudes have found it difficult
to get the jobs, even with proper training.
We have a number of affidavits from people like that.
There are two other areas in which I think the Farm Labor Service
operation has shown itself to be hypocritical in terms of agricultural
and labor development expectations. One is job training and upgrading
of workers.
The Labor Department is never going to succeed with the migrant.
I have no hope at all. They are not doing any counseling or testing
and the regulations are clear they have to do it. They are not interested
in protecting the farmworkers. At best, they see themselves in a be-
nevolently indifferent disinterested role.
Maybe a few people in Washington are somewhat interested in
the migrant worker and would be attacking the Labor Department
were they not working for it. I do not think it is a reflection on the
people in Washington. I think highly of Mr. Weber. I think he is an
extraordinary man.
I also think highly of former Secretary Wirtz, but they won't do
the job when they are in the Labor Department. At least not as to
the Farm Labor Service.
There is one illustration of the migrant workers' problems with the
Farm Labor office which I think shows total hypocrisy. That is the
example of the Green Giant Co. In 1967 Manuel R. — I am leaving
off the last names.
Senator Mondale. I was a pea inspector for them once. Be careful.
Mr. Gnaizda. Manual R. was referred by the Farm Labor Service
in Calexico to Green Giant with 260 other workers. He was referred
to Minnesota. When he arrived there with 500 workers from all over,
there were no jobs for most of the workers, only a couple of hours of
work.
Finally he arrived back at the Farm Labor Service in Calexico and
he complained. He said they paid no attention to him at all. Well, we
can understand that.
The Farm Labor Service did not have any idea that Green Giant
treated workers that way.
The next year they sent Gumberto V., along with a number of other
workers from Calexico to the State of Washington. Once again, to
Green Giant. He arrived. There was no work for almost a week. Green
Giant had apparently instructed the bus drivers not to drive anyone
south because many of the workers wanted to leave.
When he arrived back in Calexico, he saw the Farm Labor Office
still had the same sign, advertising for workers for Green Giant in
Washington. He spoke to some of the farmworkers, telling them not
to go up there.
One of the staff people who understood Spanish overheard him and
told him to stop this talk and threatened to have him sent to jail if he
did not terminate his objections to Green Giant Co.
4700
In 1969, though, they were still referring workers. One worker testi-
fied that he was referred with about 35 other workers from Calexico
to Illinois to work for Green Giant during this period. During his
first 2 weeks, after all deductions, he earned an average of 36 cents an
hour.
He said he was a slave there. He had no way to get back. He had no
money. So of course he stayed for the entire contract period of ap-
proximately 6 weeks. He went back to the Farm Labor Service. He
complained to them very bitterly. He said they just laughed at me and
told me there was nothing that could be done.
There are many other examples of exploitation of farmworkers who
are sent across California into other States.
Senator Mondale. Let us look more carefully at that Green Giant
example. Does Green Giant send a bus to Calexico, pick these people
up and take them to Illinois or Washington or Minnesota?
Mr. Gnaizda. That is what the Farm Labor Service people tell us.
It is their bus, Green Giant — but we don't think so. We think they are
contracted out.
Senator Mondale. What incentive would Green Giant have to bring,
at their own expense, surplus labor that they do not intend to use to
distant points like that? Doesn't that cost money?
Mr. Gnaizda. One would think so, but not necessarily. All the
workers testified that Green Giant did not give them advances, in case
of Calexico workers. Although transportation was paid for, it was
deducted out from their wages when they began to work. No food
allowance is given and no living allowance on long trips.
Green Giant would probably like to have just enough workers to do
the job, but they don't want to take a chance. The bus might break
down. In one case it did, so there was a delay. It is in every grower's
interest to have a surplus of workers.
It guarantees the harvesting of crops. It also guarantees you will not
have to raise the price to induce workers to stay. It induces the worker
to work more than 8 hours and it induces him to work Saturdays and
Sundays. So there is an advantage and I appreciate this advantage.
Growers may have the right to continue to do this, but the farm
labor service should not encourage it. It has an obligation to the
workers. It should try to match the workers to the job. But if they are
going to make an error, it should be against the grower, not against
the migrant or farmworker.
All of our workers could have made money somewhere else if they
had not gone there.
I am not overly sympathetic to the labor problems of large corpora-
tions. I think they are capable of handling those problems, and I think
companies that do have good labor relations in agriculture can get
plenty of workers. We have evidence of this from growers who do not
violate the law in California.
Senator Mondale. One of your allegations in the legal court com-
plaint is that better employers do not use the State employment
service ?
Mr. Gnaizda. We have an affidavit that was submitted by Driscoll
Strawberries, the second largest strawberry grower in California. The
4701
president stated in his affidavit that the farm labor service only
serves, or best serves, those growers who violate the maximum number
of laws and pay the lowest wages.
He thinks it should be terminated or run by farmworkers and
growers because presently it does not serve the best interests of agri-
culture as a whole ; it serves only the more marginal employers.
Driscoll Strawberries does not have trouble getting workers. They
come back there year after year. I think the same would be the case
for Green Giant if it had a good reputation.
The fourth major problem illustrated by the farm labor service
is the whole question of the role of Government in assisting the
powerless. I think the farm labor service puts into question the whole
role of government in attempting to assist the migrant farmworkers.
The farm labor service in California depresses wages and working
conditions. We have estimated that the farm labor service alone,
through its operation of sending workers to the worst jobs, causes a
loss of wages annually of at least $62.8 million a year.
We have also estimated that there is a substantial cost to the taxpayer
in terms of additional welfare costs, because farmworkers earning less
than a certain amount are eligible for welfare, depending on hours
worked under California welfare rules.
So what you have is the Farm Labor Service and the Federal Gov-
ernment depressing wages and working conditions, perpetuating the
powerlessness of migrants and perpetuating their poverty. I think
that if the Farm Labor Service was a private industry and the same
kind of complaints were developed, that there would be a vociferous,
widespread demand for regulation of the Farm Labor Service.
But the Farm Labor Service is a law unto itself and this is why the
farmworkers would like the Farm Labor Service closed.
As an alternative I would like to suggest concurrence with your own
proposal, Senator. I would perhaps go just a little further and say,
"Turn over the whole Farm Labor Service to the migrant workers."
I am not suggesting that they will do a good job. I don't know. They
might.
I will say one thing though. They will not do a worse job than the
Farm Labor Service has done and there will be at least 2,000 migrant
workers uplifted from poverty, because they will be on Federal
payrolls.
During the last 15 years the Farm Labor Service has cost the tax-
payers a quarter of a billion dollars that we can identify. I am sure the
cost is more than that in terms of lost wages. It certainly is more than
that just in terms of drain on our gold balance.
Since the Farm Labor Service is providing work for Mexicans most
of them save the money they earn, do not spend it in the United States,
and then take it back into Mexico. We have estimated in another law-
suit that illegal aliens in California alone are responsible for a drain of
$100 million a year on the U.S. balance of payments. They earn over
$131 million in California and over $100 million goes back to Mexico.
Senator Mondale. This gets to the border problem. I think that is
the chief cause of migrancy.
4702
Mr. Gnaizda. I concur. I think the border problem is a greater
problem than the Farm Labor Service. I think the Farm Labor Service
just accentuates it.
Senator Mondale. If you could prevent that illegal gush of labor
coming across the border, bargaining power of those who are left, of
U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens would rise dramatically.
You say Calexico is the biggest office in the country ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Biggest in California; 463,000 job placements.
Senator Mondale. That is right on the Mexican border ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Right across from Mexicali.
Senator Mondale. Most of the people that come to that office are
just commuting from Mexico, are they not ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir.
Senator Mondale. And go back there ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir.
Senator Mondale. They say a quarter of those are nonresident aliens.
Mr. Gnaizda. The Calexico statistics are 80 percent of 463,000 are
Mexicans. That is just for Calexico.
Senator Mondale. That is based on their statistics ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Yes, sir.
Senator Mondale. And a lot are producing phony baptismal
certificates?
Mr. Gnaizda. I would think so.
Senator Mondale. So that understates the number of aliens.
Mr. Gnaizda. We would say so. We had a survey made of Imperial
County farmworkers from the Calexico area; 125 were interviewed.
Many people would not talk. We assumed most of those who would not
talk were Mexicans. Of those who did, somewhat over '75 percent were
from Mexico.
It was interesting, their observations on the farm labor service.
None of them could ever recall being assisted by the farm labor serv-
ice in any fashion. All but three of them were very unhappy and dis-
satisfied with farm labor service.
These are Mexicans whose toleration of abusive government is
greater than that of most Americans.
Senator Mondale. In your opinion, is the State employment office in
Calexico actually soliciting foreign labor?
Mr. Gnaizda. Sure. They have to keep up their statistics. They are
now on a windmill. They have no alternative. Once that statistic starts
to go up, you cannot let it level off, because other States are in competi-
tion for funding.
Senator Mondale. Let us go right to the Department and ask them
for statistics from all States of the last 5 years and see what they are.
Also get a list of all employment offices on the Mexican border and
trace the same kinds of statistics that we have seen in Calexico.
Mr. Gnaizda. I think that would be very helpful.
There were a couple of suggestions that you made, Senator, which I
agree with wholeheartedly. One of them is if we do not want to turn
over the farm labor service to migrant workers, we could just con-
sider taking that $21 million and buying mobile homes. I think they
would be far better off. If you took the $250 million that has been
4703
squandered over the last 15 years and put it in mobile homes, 50,000
migrant families would now have mobile homes.
Senator Mondale. 50,000 might be more houses than migrants?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct, I was leaving a little leeway because
of the possibility that their statistics might be inaccurate. There was
some suggestion of that yesterday, I believe.
In summary, I think the farmworkers' view of the Farm Labor
Service is best expressed by a quote from the "The Grapes of Wrath."'
Tom, of the Joad family, was referring to the farm labor conditions
that he encountered and he said, "That's Stinking." And the young
man laughed harshly and he said, "You stay out here a little while
and if you smell any roses, you come let me smell, too."
Thank you.
Senator Mondale. Mr. Mittelman.
Mr. Mittleman. I have a few things. You quoted from a number
of documents, particularly a deposition and some affidavits. I wonder
if you could supply for the committee's records actual copies of dep-
ositions and the affidavits you quoted from.
Mr. Gnaizda. As to all the affidavits, yes. And what I will do for
the committee is submit the pertinent points on the depositions because
they are fairly lengthy.
Mr. Mittelman. If you could submit enough so we know the con-
text, questions, and the direct quotations.
Mr. Gnaizda. I will be delighted to do so. I might note that the ma-
terials were submitted together with my opening statement, and per-
haps they will all be printed together.
Mr. Mittelman. That's fine. Secondly, a number of charges you
made are obviously very serious and they do apparently involve viola-
tion of Federal Government regulations, but I think the record ought
to be clarified as to the relationship between the Federal Government
and the local State employment service. This is not, as least as I under-
stand it, a matter of Federal Government being able to step in and tell
local employment service director what he must do to follow regula-
tions or, indeed, to fire a local employment service director who fails
to follow regulations.
There is a very delicate relationship between the U.S. Department
of Labor and various state governments and, in fact, the employment,
local employment service officers are known as State employment serv-
ice officers and the employees of those offices are State employees.
They are not Federal employees by and large.
Is that your understanding ?
Mr. Gnaizda. The factual statements are correct. The conclusion
legally is one, I think, that is not necessarily correct. The regulations
specifically state that no State may operate a Farm Labor Service and
get any Federal funds unless it has an effective plan of operation that
is in full compliance with every rule and regulation.
And the Labor Department could cut off the funds. They could
threaten to cut them off and, in fact, now have acknowledged that, in
fact, they may have some duties. But over the past 15 years they have
taken the position that they have no responsibility.
4704
Mr. Mittelman. You are absolutely right. They obviously do have
a responsibility. I want to get the record straight to indicate that in
order to correct the problem, the U.S. Department of Labor has to
negotiate with California concerning its implementation of its total
plan for its running of its employment service.
The Federal Government cannot step in directly and give orders to
a local State employment service director. It must negotiate with the
California State Employment Service and its director, who is respon-
sible basically to the government of California.
Mr. Gnaizda. That is correct, in the technical sense of viewing
things as going through channels. However, all Secretary of Labor
Shultz has to do is send a letter saying here are the regulations. We
want them obeyed in spirit.
Mr. Mittelman. That sounds very easy.
Mr. Gnaizda. He just has to threaten to cut off the funds.
Mr. Mittelman. I appreciate that and I am not arguing at all.
Mr. Gnaizda. I understand.
Mr. Mittelman. I just wanted to clarify the record, because Mr.
Weber was here yesterday, and I believe you heard his testimony. It
was not made clear on the record that he could not step in and tell
the local employment service director to change his ways.
This is a matter of negotiation between Federal and State govern-
ments. The employment service is 100 percent Federal-funded.
Senator Mondale. This is true of farm labor offices, too. The condi-
tion for States receiving these funds is that the regulations laid down
must be complied with ?
Mr. Gnaizda. Correct.
Senator Mondale. And some of the violations you have alleged here
today are violations of those regulations?
Mr. Gnaizda. Correct.
Senator Mondale. Is there any evidence that you have that the Fed-
eral Labor Department has tried to enforce the obedience to these
regulations by local farm labor offices?
Mr. Gnaizda. I think the best evidence would be two letters that I
wrote. I documented the matter more generally in October of 1968,
October 22; I sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Wirtz. I merely
received an immediate response thanking me for calling this to his
attention.
That was the end of the response. On July 9, 1969, I felt Secretary
Shultz had been in office long enough for me to call this to his atten-
tion through an almost identical letter. And I indicated that any addi-
tional information he would like would be made readily available. I
never received a response.
Senator Mondale. What violation or violations were you refer-
ring to?
Mr. Gnaizda. The whole office; we stated it was a grower- run,
grower-dominated office, that it subsidized only those growers who
violated the law and we threatened litigation if we did not receive a
response.
Nevertheless, we received no response. We then tried to negotiate
with the State and we met with them in December of 1969 after they
4705
had lost a related lawsuit in State court. The}7 contended they had no
obligation under the act at all. They lost the State lawsuit.
When we inquired as when they would enforce the law, they in-
dicated it would take time. We said, "How long? A year?" They said,
"Maybe longer." So we then attempted to get in touch with the Secre-
tary of Labor and he finally met with a group of farmworkers on
February 20, 1970. Secretary Weber alluded to this yesterday.
The Secretary's position at that time was he would look into it with-
out a commitment of any kind at all. I am not really free to say what
is happening since then, but I would say we are not satisfied at all.
Senator Mondale. You say the State of California took the position
that the Federal funds came to the State unconditioned ?
Mr. Gnaizda. They would not put it in those legal terms, but in
substance that is correct. I am sure as an attorney you have found that
this generally happens. Any time you bring a suit against anybody,
he says he owes no duty to your clients.
Senator Mondale. At this point the reality of a farmworker who is
treated in a way which violates those regulations is one of total power-
lessness. There is nothing he can do about it unless he has the money to
hire a lawyer, unless some administrator goes out of his way to help.
Mr. Gnaizda. But he cannot even hire a lawyer. They are afraid.
The way we brought this suit is we filed in a sealed envelop the undis-
closed names of 250 farmworkers. We called it 250 farmworkers versus
Shultz.
A worker runs a risk of being blacklisted. To disclose one's name
takes the kind of courage most bureaucrats do not even have.
I have not heard anybody at the Labor Department say we should do
something about the exploitation of the migrant. I only hear talk about
more studies. I am not opposed to studies, but I think more of the
money should be given directly to the migratory worker. The worst
that will occur will be that a few thousand migrant workers will profit
from the jobs created and leave their migrant position and move into
the middle class.
Senator Mondale. Thank you very much for a most useful state-
ment. You have reassured me in my belief that one of the few good
things we have done in this country is the passage of legislation pro-
viding for the establishment of a legal services program.
Mr. Gnaizda. Thank you for your support.
Senator Mondale. The subcommittee has received several statements
that I order printed at this point in the record.
(The information referred to follows:)
4706
The Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C., April 10, 1970.
Mr. Boren Chertkov,
Counsel for Subcommittee of
Migratory Farm Labor, U.S. Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chertkov : I have prepared and enclosed a capsule statement of the
Geneseo monograph. The statement is entitled "The Measurement and Interpre-
tation of the Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers".
I have recently experimented with a capsule statement of the Public Policy
paper in a seminar I gave the Afro-American Studies students at Yale and at
an economics seminar at Penn State, and have concluded that it is better left
whole. v
Please feel free to use in part or in whole any of the materials I have sent you.
Sincerely yours,
Herrington J. Bryce.
Enclosures.
4707
Alternative Policies for Increasing
The Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers
BY
Herrington J. Bryce
Reprinted from
PUBLIC POLICY
Volume xviii, Spring 1970, Number 3
Copyright, 1970, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College
4708
PUBLIC POLICY
PUBLISHED BY THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Editorial Board
James S. Duesenberry Samuel L. Popkin
Richard C. Edwards Lester C. Thurow
Stanley H. Hoffmann Michael Walzer
Robert Jervis Paul H. Weaver
Edwin Kuh Harrison Wellford
Ernest R. May Robert C. Wood
John D. Montgomery, Chairman
Editors
James R. Kurth, Politics Thomas D. Willett, Economics
Edith L. Annin, Assistant Editor
PUBLIC POLICY is published quarterly by the Harvard University Press for the
John Fitzgerald Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Annual sub-
scription, $8.00 (foreign, $9.00); single copies, $2.50. Manuscripts and editorial
correspondence should be addressed to The Editors, PUBLIC POLICY, Littauer 222,
Cambridge, Mass. 02138; business correspondence concerning subscriptions, back
issues, and advertising should be addressed to the Harvard University Press, 79
Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02138.
© 1970 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by the Harvard University Press
79 Garden St. Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Application to mail at second-class rates is pending at Boston, Mass.
4709
ALTERNATIVE POLICIES FOR INCREASING
THE EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY
FARM WORKERS
HERRINGTON J. BRYCE
The earnings of migratory farm workers are pitifully low. How
can they be increased? Basically, there are three alternative poli-
cies for increasing the earnings of any group of workers: an in-
crease in the demand for their services, a minimum wage, and a
reduction in their supply. This paper discusses these alternatives
as they relate to migrant farm workers. The potential contribution
of a farm labor union is also considered.
Present Levels of Money Earnings
In 1968 migrants on farms covered by the federal minimum wage
law earned $1.66 an hour, 4^ more than those on uncovered farms.
As usual, the regional variation in wages was very wide. Wages
were highest in California and in the Northeastern states of Con-
necticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. They were lowest in
the South. In Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ten-
nessee, West Virginia, and especially South Carolina, the average
wage of migrants was below the federal minimum of $1.15. In
South Carolina it was 99^.
Hourly rates overestimate the total annual income of migrants,
since most are irregularly employed. The annual income of those
who worked exclusively on farms in 1968 was about $1,000. Those
who did both farm and nonfarm work earned nearly $2,000.x
* This article is based on a report prepared for the New York State Center for
Migrant Studies (see footnote 4). I am grateful for the comments of David Martin,
Roy Bryce-LaPorte, Constantine Michalopoulos, Stuart O. Schweitzer, and B. J.
Widnick, although the views expressed here are my own.
i The state wage data are obtained from the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor,
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States, 1969 (Report of the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate), p. 51, and U.S. Department
of Labor, Hired Farmworkers: A Study of the Effects of the $1.15 Minimum Wage
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1969, pp. 8-10. Annual income data are ob-
tained from Robert C. McElroy, The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968 (Agri-
4710
414 Public Policy
These low earnings are reflected in the very high rates of poverty
and malnutrition in rural America.
A Reduction in the Supply of Farm Labor
A reduction in the supply of farm labor undergirds all other poli-
cies.2 It will relieve further downward pressure on wages by
bringing supply more in line with the continuing decrease in the
demand for migrant labor due to mechanization. It will help to
alleviate underemployment by reducing the number of indi-
viduals among whom a smaller and smaller quantity of work is
allocated; to bring about a more efficient scheduling of work;
and to bring about the competition needed to make current mini-
mum wage laws effective.
How can supply be reduced? It will not be sufficient simply to
induce people to leave the migrant stream. Not only will such a
strategy breed hardship, but it will fail to reduce the supply of
farm labor unless steady employment at adequate wages is found
in the nonfarm sector. There is some evidence to imply that many
who leave the migrant stream do not in fact divorce themselves
from agricultural employment. Many who leave later return;
others become sedentary but continue to work either exclusively
or part-time in agriculture.3 Some join squatter-type communities
in rural areas and constitute part of the local supply of farm
labor. Others go to the city ghetto, where they are either unem-
ployed or occasionally employed on farms and are known as day-
haul labor. Finally, the consequence of a large number of mi-
cultural Economic Report No. 164; Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, June 1969), p. 6.
2 At least one prominent economist sees a reduction in farm labor supply as
offering the only real hope for higher wages. See Theodore W. Schultz, "National
Employment, Skills, and Earnings," in C. E. Bishop (ed.), Farm Labor in the United
States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), pp. 53-56.
3 The chances for complete and successful separation from farm employment are
most favorable for persons with high income (a reflection of productivity) and for
those who settle in large cities farthest away from farms. Those who settle close by
(and most do) are likely to return to farming. See Dale E. Hathaway and Brian E.
Perkins, "Occupational Mobility and Migration from Agriculture," in The Presi-
dent's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, Rural Poverty in the
United States (Washington, D.C., May 1968), pp. 185-237.
4711
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 415
grants entering the nonfarm labor market could be depressed
wages for others (largely nonwhites) who are concentrated or
trapped in the lower skilled jobs for which migrants will com-
pete. A reduction in the farm labor supply must be carefully
thought through.
One way to reduce supply is to provide migrants with skills
which will enable them to assume nonfarm jobs. A steady job
even at somewhat lower wages than some migrants now obtain
would make a significant number of them better off. For ex-
ample, a comparison of the total earnings of migrants at the end
of the seventeen-week harvest in Wayne County, New York, with
those of workers in steady employment (40 hours per week) dur-
ing the same period, shows that 23 percent of migrants had lower
total earnings than a worker with steady employment at $1.15 (the
federal minimum wage in agriculture); 33 percent earned less
than one with steady employment at $1.40 (the New York State
minimum wage for agriculture); 44 percent earned less than one
with steady employment at $1.62 (the average wage of migrants
studied).4 The effects on income of the irregularity of employ-
ment is undeniable.
Having obtained a skill for nonfarm employment, migrants
should be aided in their adjustment to a nonagricultural way of
life.5 The modus operandi is vastly different in the two sectors.
4 Based on data in Herrington J. Bryce, Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers in
Wayne County, New York: 1968 (Monograph No. 1; Geneseo, N.Y.: State University
College of Arts and Science, 1969), pp. 24, 25. The situation described here will be
more pronounced if nonwage benefits are taken into consideration. With the ex-
ception of seasonal housing, which is not always free, these nonwage benefits are
more plentiful in the nonfarm sector.
5 Since 1965 the U.S. Department of Labor has experimented with mobility pro-
grams which emphasize job and wage information and financial assistance for relo-
cation; see Audrey Freedman, "Labor Mobility Projects for the Unemployed,"
Monthly Labor Review, XCI (June 1968), 56-62. It is said that these and other
programs to aid mobility often lack coordination and are sometimes conflicting; see
Donald Schon, "Assimilation of Migrants into Urban Centers," in Rural Poverty
in the United States, op. cit., pp. 267-287. Further, there is some evidence that
financial cost is not the major obstacle to outmigration. Lowell E. Gallaway, in
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, L (May 1969), 199-212, finds that the
main barrier is artificial. Paul Johnson, "Labor Mobility, Some Costs and Returns,"
in Rural Poverty in the United States, op. cit., pp. 238-247, finds that lack of infor-
mation is the major obstacle. European countries have also engaged in rural-
urban transition programs. These are described in Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Measures of Adjustment of Rural Manpower to
Industrial Work and Urban Areas (Paris: OECD, 1968), and Sheridan T. Maitland
4712
416 Public Policy
Farm work is irregular and poorly scheduled; hence, punctuality
has very little meaning and is hardly essential to maintaining a
job. As a matter of fact, punctuality is frequently costly. Huge
food debts are incurred by those who arrive early from their home
state, only to sit idly waiting for picking to begin. There is no
institutionalized daily work period, such as 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; work
begins and ends without notice. When it rains there is no work or
pay. In addition, a strong commitment to a grower will not lead
to higher wages or to a job promotion — almost everyone does the
same work and all are paid the same wage. On the other hand,
commitment, incentive, and punctuality are important to success
in the nonfarm sector.
Adjustment and employment in the nonfarm sector will be
facilitated by a reduction in racial discrimination in employment.
In trips to farms, I have regularly observed the absence of blacks
operating state equipment in road crews or private equipment in
construction crews, whereas similar equipment was being operated
by some black migrants on farms. They should be eligible for
suitable employment in the nonfarm sector.
Employment and outmigration from farming will depend upon
the level of demand for workers in the nonfarm sector. It has
been shown that income and employment opportunities for blacks
in the nonfarm sector increase noticeably in good times. It has
also been shown that outmigration from farming is related to
conditions in the nonfarm economy. Especially in the case of
blacks, when the level of employment or expected earnings in the
nonfarm sector are low, outmigration from farming is likely to
be low and unsuccessful.6 Thus, a high level of demand for labor
in the nonfarm sector is essential if outmigration from farming is
to succeed.
The industrialization of the South offers another avenue for
decreasing the supply of farm workers.7 New nonfarm establish-
and Stanley M. Knebel, "Rural to Urban Transition," Monthly Labor Review, XCI
(June 1968), 28-32.
6 See Herman P. Miller, Income of the American People (New York: Wiley, 1955),
chaps. 5, 8, 9, and Appendix C; and Hathaway and Perkins, op. cit., p. 191. See also
Edward G. Schuh, "Interrelations between the Farm Labor Force and Changes in
the Total Economy," in Rural Poverty in the United States, op. cit., pp. 170-183.
7 This policy dovetails with the view that the solution to the urban problem in
the North is the industrialization of the South as a means of choking off the flow
4713
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 417
merits could be most effective if they hired blacks on a year-round
basis, but a significant contribution could be made if hiring took
place at the end of the Southern harvest; for in this case, some
workers would be diverted from the migrant stream.8
As a special case of the implementation of a policy of indus-
trialization, black establishments could be organized on a coopera-
I tive basis, hiring and paying their employees a wage equal to what
I they would have received on farms. With steady employment,
' their total earnings would be higher. Profits of the cooperatives
I (resulting in part from wages paid) could be reinvested so as to
I provide jobs for even more migrants.9 The results could be higher
earnings for these workers as well as for those who enter the
j stream. Black capitalism might be instrumental in this effort,
and I recommend consideration of its use toward this end.
Two other policies might be undertaken to reduce supply almost
instantaneously. One is to pass a law limiting the number of
children working on farms. It has been estimated that nearly
30 percent of farm wageworkers are 14 to 17 years of age.10 It
stands to reason that if the minimum age for all types of hired
farm labor in all states was raised to about 16, the farm labor sup-
ply would fall by nearly 30 percent, even considering that chil-
dren tend to work fewer hours than adults. It is likely that the
effects of children working on farms are to deprive them of an
education, thus perpetuating the migrant stream; and to cheapen
the labor of their parents, thus making child labor necessary. The
problem is circular.
Raising the age limit has great appeal. Compared with training
of rural southerners into northern ghettos. This view is promulgated by John F.
Rain, "Notes from the Blackbelt" (testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, Montgomery, Ala., May 2, 1968); see also John F. Kain and Joseph J. Persky,
"The North's Stake in Southern Rural Poverty," in Rural Poverty in the United
States, op. cit., pp. 288-308. See also Niles M. Hansen, "Regional Development
and the Rural Poor," Journal of Human Resources, IV (Spring 1969), 205-214.
8 One indirect effect of working part of the year in a nonfarm job might be
outmigration from farming. Multiple job-holding was found to be an important
intermediate step in this process. See Dale E. Hathaway, "Occupational Mobility
from the Farm Labor Force," in Bishop, op. cit., pp. 71-96.
9 These principles are similar to those espoused by W. Arthur Lewis for less
developed countries with a surplus of rural labor: see his "Development with Un-
limited Supplies of Labor," The Manchester School (May 1954), 139-192.
10 Estimate based on McElroy, op. cit., pp. 10, 11. About 32 percent of migratory
and 32 percent of nonmigratory farm workers are between 14 and 17.
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 13
4714
418 Public Policy
(everybody's panacea), it would cut the supply of labor more
sharply and would require a shorter gestation period. Moreover,
it is likely to be less expensive to implement and to police. Freeing
migrant children from work will provide them with time for the
compensatory and remedial education which everybody agrees they
will need in order to escape the fate of their parents. Growers will
also benefit, because the pressure and cost of housing will decline if
children are left at home. I especially submit this policy option
for consideration.
The second way to bring about a quick and sharp reduction in
the labor supply is to halt the illegal entry of foreign nationals
who are hired by growers as cheap labor and as strikebreakers.
It is hoped that the recent ruling in California which restricts the
hiring of these "wetbacks" will abate the illegal inflow of farm
workers and result in higher wages.
Then there is the problem of the impact of Mexican commuters
and foreign temporary (but legal) workers on wages and employ-
ment.11 To date, the system has operated to assure farmers of
an adequate supply of labor. Formerly, this was accomplished
through the bracero program (Public Law 78) from 1951 to 1963.
The present operative regulation (Public Law 414) stipulates that
the importation of foreign labor is legal only if the employment
and wages of domestic workers are not adversely affected. There
is evidence that wages for domestic workers are being adversely
affected, but importation continues, albeit at a diminishing rate.12
An Increased Demand for Migratory Farm Labor
An alternative way to increase the earnings of a group of workers
is to increase the demand for the services they provide. This
il Although foreign labor accounts for a very small part (less than 10 percent)
of national farm wage-workers, their presence in some individual states is signifi-
cant. In 1968, 15 percent of the farm workers in Maine were Canadians; 13 percent
of Florida's and 20 percent of West Virginia's farm workers came from the British
West Indies or the Bahamas. British West Indians accounted for 80 percent of the
foreign workers. Calculated from U.S. Department of Labor, Farm Labor (first
issue 1969), 8-11 and 33-49.
12 See Stanley M. Knebel, "Restrictive Admission Standards: Probable Impact on
Mexican Alien Commuters," in Farm Labor Developments (U.S. Department of
Labor, November 1968), pp. 8-20; Varden Fuller, "Hired Farm Labor in the West,"
4715
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 419
objective might be accomplished through a growth in the size
and income of the population. But because food is a necessity and
is already plentiful for most people in this country, a normal
growth in domestic income and population would not lead to a
dramatic rise in the demand for food and hence for migrant
services.
Another way to increase the demand for a group of workers is
to increase their productivity; for example, by education. In the
case of farm workers, education leads more to outmigration than
to increased productivity. Only a very low level of education is
required to do most farm work, and advanced training is better
rewarded in the nonfarm sector.13 Labor productivity might also
be increased through mechanization, but concomitantly machines
will take over most jobs. A third means by which productivity
could be increased is by a reorganization of work so as to reduce
inefficiency in the use of labor on farms. By definition, this would
mean achieving at least the same level of farm output with a
lower level of farm labor employment. Clearly, unemployment
would ensue.
Nevertheless, part of the problem of low migrant income lies in
the inefficient organization and coordination of work. Migrants
suffer severe underemployment during a harvest, as well as at
the end when they return home. I have noted that for as many
as five weeks during the Wayne County harvest, migrants may
average well below 40 hours a week because the demand for
workers declines between crops. It is estimated that the cost of
in Rural Poverty in the United States, op. cit., especially pp. 436^138; and Phyllis
Groom, "Today's Farm Jobs and Farmworkers," Monthly Labor Review, XC (April
1967), 2, and Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit., pp. 61-65.
13 Over 60 percent of farm wage-workers never got beyond the eighth grade; see
Aura Rapton, A Socio-Economic Profile of the 1965 Farm Wage Force (Agricultural
Economic Report No. 157; Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, April 1969), pp. 13, 14. It has been found that a 10 percent rise in educa-
tion would lead to a 5 percent wage increase through a 6 to 7 percent outmigration:
Micha Gisser, "Schooling and the Farm Problem," Econometrica, XXXIII (July
1965), 582-592. It has been found that the average income of those who leave
rural areas exceeds that of those who remain: see John B. Lansing and James N.
Morgan, "The Effect of Geographical Mobility on Income," Journal of Human Re-
sources, II (Fall 1967), 449^60. But there is inconclusive evidence that the marginal
return to education in agriculture exceeds the opportunity cost in nonfarming.
See Zvi Griliches, "Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Pro-
duction Function," American Economic Review, LIV (December 1964), 961-974.
4716
420 Public Policy
underemployment to the average migrant during the slack period
was about $370. 14 A policy which reduces midharvest underem-
ployment could materially improve the earnings of migrants.
Puerto Rican migrants who work under contract sponsored by
their government have a guaranteed minimum number of hours
of work as a defense against underemployment. A similar policy
should be enacted for domestic migrants, and it should be accom-
panied by a minimum wage in order to avoid the eventuality
that work will be offered, but at such low wages that migrants
could not afford to accept.
It should be noted that to fulfill a guarantee of work hours,
fewer persons might be employed. A grower will limit his hiring
of migrants to the number he can safely assure work commensurate
with the required wage. Thus higher earnings for some would
mean unemployment for others. Since unemployment will vary
directly with the supply of labor, a policy which reduces supply
will facilitate the implementation of a work guarantee or an im-
proved coordination of work.
In addition to mid-harvest underemployment, there is the issue
of over-all lack of work. The rate of underemployment in rural
areas is 37 percent, a little more than in the urban ghetto. It has
been estimated that migrants who engage solely in farm work are
employed an average of 138 days per year. Those who do both
farm and nonfarm work average 168 days.15 The policy sought
is one which would expand the demand for these workers either
in the farm sector, the nonfarm sector, or both. From all that has
been said, it is apodictic that the key is greater absorption in the
nonfarm sector.
A Minimum Wage
A minimum wage is an alternative policy for increasing migrant
earnings. Only in the last three years have agricultural workers
14 Calculated in Bryce, op. cit., pp. 15-25.
is Data on underemployment are taken from The President's National Advisory
Commission on Rural Poverty, "The People Left Behind," Employment and Train-
ing Legislation, 1968 (Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of
the Committee of Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate). See also The Manpower
4717
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 421
been covered by a federal minimum wage law, which was $1.15
in 1968 but is at present $1.30. No provisions have been made for
overtime premiums, and not all farms are covered. Specifically,
only those farms which used 500 or more man-days of labor in
any quarter of the preceding calendar year must comply.
In addition to federal law, states have enacted their own mini-
mum wage orders. New York was the latest to do so, with a
minimum of $1.40 in 1969 and $1.50 in 1970. It is worth noting
that the New York bill was passed with the support of both
organized labor and farmers. Other states with minimum wage
laws are Arizona, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan,
and New Jersey. California offers the highest minimum ($1.65)
and employs the greatest number of migrants. Like the federal
government, states exclude certain farms from compliance.
These laws as they now stand are more illusory than helpful.
First, there are a great number of migrants and other farm workers
who fall into the "uncovered" category. About a third of all
migratory workers and more than half of all hired farm workers
were not covered by the federal minimum wage law in 1968.16
Although these figures represent a substantial improvement since
1967, the percentages remain high.
In addition, approximately 60 percent of all migrants work in
states in which they are not covered by state minimum wage
laws.17 Even where such laws exist, many migrants remain un-
covered. Wisconsin excludes men from coverage, and men ac-
count for nearly 60 percent of the migrants in that state. Cali-
fornia excludes adult men, and they probably account for nearly
60 percent of the migrants there.18
The ability of a minimum wage law to increase the earnings
of migrants is further limited by the fact that these laws generally
refer to hourly rates. Migrants are often paid on a piece-rate,
Report of the President, 1967, pp. 101-109; H. J. Hilaski and H. M. Willacy, "Em-
ployment Patterns and Place of Residence," Monthly Labor Review, XCII (October
1969), 18-25; Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit., p. 54; and U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Handbook of Agricultural Charts, 1966, p. 60.
16 U.S. Department of Labor, Hired Farmworkers, op. cit., pp. 8-10, 36-41.
17 Due to problems of double counting, this is only a rough estimate. Data de-
rived from Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, op. cit., p. 9.
18 This is assuming that the state labor force is broken down according to sex
as the nation is. Data derived from McElroy, op. cit., p. 10.
4718
422 Public Policy
rather than on an hourly basis, and there is usually no necessity
for the two to match. Moreover, the hourly rate that is enacted
may be below the prevailing rate. In New York a $1.40 minimum
was enacted when the state's own estimate of the prevailing rate
was $1.54. At the time that the federal minimum was established,
it was below the prevailing rate in some states.
The preceding observations imply that if the minimum wage
is to become more real than imaginary as a way to improve migrant
incomes, it should be extended and raised. But there are some
serious questions about the way a minimum wage affects earnings
and employment. In what follows, some of these crucial issues
are discussed, recognizing that the way a minimum wage affects
employment depends on such factors as the nature of the demand
for and supply of workers, the organization of the labor market,
and the length of time the market has to adjust to the change in
wages.
Would a minimum wage attract more workers to agriculture
than can be adequately employed? The findings of one study
suggest that if the minimum wage were rigidly enforced, it would
tend to beckon a larger number of workers to agriculture than
could be absorbed.19 It is very unlikely, however, that the farm
minimum wage would rise to the nonfarm level of wages even
in real terms. The conditions of employment in agriculture tend
to be less favorable than those in the nonagricultural sector. Con-
sequently, the workers beckoned are hardly likely to come from
the nonagricultural sector, but instead from the ranks of the un-
employed or those who are not in the labor force. There might
be disappointment, but not much loss, and many would enjoy
higher wages.
Another consideration is that a minimum wage tends to lead
to unemployment by making it more economical to employ
machines. Although this argument is correct, it refers to a long-
run effect (thus giving time for a reduction in farm labor sup-
ply). Moreover, the substitution of machines is dependent on
forces other than a minimum wage. It also depends on techno-
logical progress and the ability to produce machines which farm-
ers can afford. Even without a minimum wage, these forces could
19 Schuh, op. cit., p. 182.
4719
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 423
lead to a greater use of machines, although a minimum wage en-
courages it by raising the relative cost of labor. In short, there
is a limit to the usefulness of a minimum wage. If unemployment
is to be avoided in the long run, the supply of labor must be de-
creased to offset the rate of mechanization.
A third aspect of the minimum wage-unemployment issue is
less important in the agricultural sector than it is elsewhere. In
the short run, a minimum wage causes costs and prices to increase,
so that consumers buy less and employment falls. This line of
events is less true in agriculture because food is a necessity and
increases in prices do not result in drastic reductions in the quan-
tity bought.
Is there a significant "contour effect," so that once a few farms
are made subject to a minimum wage, all farms are forced by
competition for labor to pay at least the minimum? If there is,
then excluding certain farms from coverage would not matter. It
is hard to conceive of a very powerful "contour effect" where (as
in the case of migrants) there is a large, disorganized group of
workers who have no other job opportunities. Under these con-
ditions, the sheer want of a living will force many to work for
lower wages. This appears to be the case in the South.
Does a low state minimum legalize low wages? Unless forced
by competition for labor, farmers within a state may be satisfied
with paying the legal minimum or slightly above it, even though
they could pay more. This is possible in a state where farmers
are able to exercise tacit or explicit collusive power in keeping
wages down.20 If a minimum wage which is lower than the in-
20 The farm labor market has been described as having some semblance of a
noncompetitive model. See L. B. Jones and J. W. Christian, "Some Observations on
Agricultural Labor Market," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XVIII (July
1965), 552-554.
I believe that the national and local labor markets (i.e., within each state) can be
distinguished along the following lines. On the national level, the market might
be considered competitive and the supply of labor plentiful. On the local level
there is a possibility for collusive power on the part of some farmers due to the ex-
istence of farmer organizations and media in which wages are discussed, a few very
large farmers who are the major employers and purchasers of the products of small
farmers, and an atomistic group of workers.
Under these conditions, large and efficient farmers might be able to "set" a
price below the equilibrium rate in order to save some of the less efficient farmers
from shutting down. This would lead to a larger demand and a smaller supply
of labor than at the equilibrium rate. Part of the labor shortage resulting from
4720
424 Public Policy
tended wage of farmers is imposed in such a setting, farmers could
legitimately boast that they were paying above the legally re-
quired minimum. But the wage would be so low that workers
would continue to be exploited. The current practice of setting
minimum wages below prevailing rates reinforces this possibility.
The argument used by Governor Rockefeller in justifying the
New York minimum wage law was that both farmers and migrants
would benefit: the former by reduced labor shortages, the latter
by higher wages. A state could reduce labor shortages at the same
time that it increases migrant wages if its growers are pursuing a
wage policy which pegs wages below the market equilibrium rate.
Finally, does a minimum wage help the more inefficient migrants
at the expense of the more efficient ones? A minimum wage which
replaces a piece-rate schedule could have this effect, assuming that
the high-productivity migrants at least maintain a productivity
which is above the minimum wage. The employer could then
use the surplus to pay the low-productivity migrants. If such is
the case, a minimum wage would be at the expense of efficient
migrants — not at the expense of farmers. A possible way out of
this dilemma is a minimum wage with an incentive schedule.
Present laws permit but do not assure this.
The conclusion to be drawn from the discussion of these issues
is that the minimum wage is not an unambiguous policy. Its
greatest weakness is that it can be inimical to employment. A
minimum wage is at best a good short-run policy and as such, it
should be extended and increased. Its implementation and effects
should be monitored.
The real income of migrants is reduced by the cost of trans-
portation. It has been estimated that a third of all migrants travel
400 or more miles from home to farm. A fifth travel a thousand
such a policy might be made up by labor-sharing arrangements between large
farmers and some of the small cooperating farmers. Small noncooperating farmers
would suffer a labor shortage.
In a market where collusion is operative in wage determination, a minimum wage
above the prevailing rate would reduce shortages and increase wages. A minimum
wage below the prevailing rate might have no effect if the prevailing rate meets
the collusive objectives of the farmers.
Another distinction between the national and local markets is that while the
supply of labor in the nation might be plentiful, in any given local market at any
given point in time there might be shortages due to frictions in the adjustment of
the market.
4721
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 425
or more miles.21 Invariably, the cost of this travel is met by the
migrants, even though they are recruited and cajoled by farmers
or crew leaders. The earnings of migrants could be increased if,
as in the case of industry, the employer paid these expenses. Travel
from Florida to New York or from Texas to the Pacific Coast
should not be considered a commuting expense.
The policies discussed in this paper will not work to free all
migrants from low wages. Some will remain behind, unable to
earn a decent living. On behalf of these, some form of tax relief
or income supplement might be provided. Income supplements
should not replace efforts to pursue the policies discussed. They
should be purely ancillary, if the public is not to subsidize low
wages paid by farmers.22
A Union as a Policy Instrument
The National Labor Relations Act, as well as many state laws,
does not include agricultural workers in the right to unionize.
Some agricultural workers who are not field personnel have been
organized in Hawaii and in parts of California. Attempts are
being made to organize field workers (the category into which
most migrants fall) in such states as Wisconsin, New York, New
Jersey, and, of course, California. Organizations such as the
Teamsters, NAACP, AFL-CIO, and the United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee have been involved in this effort.23
21 "The Migratory Farm Worker," Monthly Labor Review, XCI (June 1968),
10-12.
22 This point is well made by Curtis Aller:
Drawing on the pool of welfare recipients, farm operators are assured of an
adequate labor supply wh^n and where needed, simply returning the workers
to the relief rolls for storage during lulls in labor needs. The farm operators
thus escape the responsibility normally imposed on employers in nonagricul-
tural industries to provide regular employment and adequate earnings, sup-
plemented by unemployment insurance coverage and a variety of fringe bene-
fits, sufficiently attractive to draw and hold a stable work force. At the same
time, individual relief recipients are not helped to make long-range adjust-
ments in the job market. Using public assistance in this way, with its high
social and human costs, is the antithesis of the human resource development
approach that we should be following. (Curtis C. Aller, "Manpower Programs
for Farm People," in Bishop, op. cit., pp. 115-135.)
23 For a discussion of the attempts toward organizing farm workers and some of
the obstacles, see Irving J. Cohen, "La Huelga! Delano and After," Monthly Labor
4722
426 Public Policy
The most persuasive objection farmers have to the unionization
of migrants is that a strike, even one of short duration, during a
harvest could lead to the total loss of a crop. Recently, Secretary
of Labor George Shultz has sought to meet this objection by
recommending that unionization be permitted but that farmers
be protected against harvest-time strikes.24 Some farmers, how-
ever, are wary of the enforceability of such a covenant, since de-
spite the Taylor Laws in New York public employees there have
gone on strike.
The objection does not rest on sound grounds. First, workers
such as firemen, police, and air controllers who could impose a
great loss to society by striking are not deprived of the right to
organize. Secondly, even in the absence of a union, growers are
not immune to walkouts. Discontented migrants and their fami-
lies often leave farms while the harvest is in progress. The only
difference is that if there is sufficient time, a grower could recruit
replacements or borrow migrants from other farms without being
blocked by a union. Thirdly, migrants are being deprived of their
civil rights to organize.
Even if the legal hurdles are overcome, the task of oragnizing
will not be an easy one. A host of difficulties will arise from trying
to organize a large, atomistic group of workers who are mobile
and scattered about the country; who are unacquainted with
unionization, are poor, and are burdened by more immediate
needs; whose turnover rate is high; and whose occupation is easily
entered and left. Unionization of such a group of workers would
seem quixotic if it were not so essential.
A union could help migrants by striving for and by pursuing
the policies discussed in previous sections. It could be an impor-
tant bargaining agent — representing the interest of migrants who
Review, XCI (June 1968), 13-16; Judith Chanin Glass, "Organization in Salinas,"
ibid., 24-27; Karen S. Koziara, "Collective Bargaining on the Farm," ibid., 3-9;
Varden Fuller, "A New Era for Farm Labor," Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society (May 1967), 289; National Advisory Committee on Farm
Labor, Farm Labor Organizing, 1905-1967: A Brief History, p. 28.
24 Statement before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Labor and Public Welfare
Committee, U.S. Senate, May 6, 1969 (mimeographed) . Shultz also advocated elec-
tions for the determination of a bargaining agent, a grace period prior to a strike
which would be in addition to the 30-60-day notice of intentions to change agree-
ment, and the establishment of a farm counterpart to the National Labor Relations
Board.
4723
EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS 427
are politically powerless and who must face a better organized
group of employers. Its success in bargaining would depend on
some of the very same conditions which determine the bargaining
power of other unions.
Generally, a labor union can be a very strong bargaining agent
if (1) its members are crucial to production; (2) the goods which
its members produce are necessities, so that an increase in price
due to higher wages would not cause consumers to demand less,
thus leading to unemployment; (3) other factors of production
cannot be readily hired as replacements; and (4) the total wages
paid to members constitute such a small part of the total cost of
production that wage increases would not lead to a significant
rise in cost.25
A^ present, migrant workers are essential on fruit and vegetable
farms. They produce a necessity — food; and their wages account
for a small part of total farm cost.26 Unfortunately, a unionized
group of migrants would be easily replaced by nonunion members
unless the union controlled supply and employment. Tradition-
ally, craft unions have had greater control over supply by con-
trolling training and entry into occupations. Being composed of
very low-skilled workers, a farm labor union is not likely to have
this leverage. The best leverage a farm union is likely to have is
a quasi closed-shop arrangement with farmers.27
Through a quasi closed-shop arrangement, a union has almost
full control over the labor supply, since only its members can be
employed. Growers would benefit by shifting to the union the
cost of recruiting and the responsibility for having an adequate
number of quality workers available. Work coordination could
be achieved by the union's scheduling of work among the various
farms in a locality.
These benefits might not be sufficient to allay the fears of a
25 These are the conditions long ago articulated by Alfred Marshall, Principles
of Economics (8th ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1920), pp. 383-386.
26 Farm wage-workers account for 19 percent of total farm costs and upwards of
8 percent of farm annual expenditures. Handbook of Agricultural Charts, No. 348
(October 1967), and Farm Income Situation, Fis. 214 (July 1969), both of the Eco-
nomic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
27 Closed shops are illegal on the federal level, and states may at their discretion
choose to permit them. There are in existence various arrangements which are
virtual closed shops. The high turnover rates may make a union shop very im-
practicable.
4724
428 Public Policy
harvest-time strike. I believe that an appropriate trade-off would
be an agreement limiting but not necessarily ruling out harvest-
time strikes in exchange for one granting a quasi closed-shop
arrangement. Limiting its right to strike would not in itself
render a farm union impotent. Other unions have been able to
represent their workers without formal strikes. The crucial point
is that without control of a significant portion of the farm labor
supply, any strike attempted by a farm labor union would be
limited if not easily broken.
Conclusions: The Interrelationship between Policy Options
Possibly no single policy will bring about a prompt and sufficient
rise in the earnings of migratory farm workers. The results of a
rise in age requirements and a cessation in the hiring of illegal
entrants might be quick but not sufficient. A strategy which in-
corporates many options will be optimal. One possible policy
mix might be as follows: (1) on the supply side, a rise in the age
requirement, a cessation in the hiring of illegal entrants, and the
training, orientation, and hiring of migrants in the nonfarm
sector; (2) on the demand side, a more efficient organization of
work; (3) in terms of organization, a labor union; and (4) for
those who remain below the poverty line, supplementary income.
This latter group will be the smaller, the more efficient the labor
market strategy pursued.
4725
THE MEASUREMENT AND INTERPRETATION *
OF THE EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS
Herrington J. Bryce
The earnings of migratory farm workers are neither easily
measured nor interpreted. This paper describes some of the common
pitfalls in the measurement and interpretation of these earnings.
Examples are drawn from Wayne County, New York, a chief source of
migrant employment in that State.
THE IRREGULARITY OF EMPLOYMENT: WEEKLY FLUCTUATIONS IN
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
A common error which is committed in the interpretation and
measurement of migrant earnings is the assumption that accurate
judgment can be made based on the amount earned in a single or even
a few weeks of the harvest. Weekly fluctuations in the earnings of
migrant workers make it fallacious to assume that one or a few weeks
are typical of the harvest.
This paper is prepared at the request of the Migratory Labor
Subcommittee, U. S. Senate, and is based on a study financed
by the New York State Center for Migrant Studies at the State
University College, Geneseo, New York. See Herrington J. Bryce,
Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers in Wayne County, New York: 1968,
Monograph i-1, (Geneseo: State University College, 1969).
A member of the Research Staff, the Urban Institute, Washington,
D. C, and of the Economics Faculty, Clark University,
Massachusetts.
4726
One reason for the variation in earnings is the seasonal aspect of thj
harvest. — In Wayne County, New York, for example, the major crops
are cherries and apples. Figure 1 shows that sweet cherries are
picked in early July and employment might be good for about ten days.!
Employment may drop slightly for a few days and then improve around
the fifteenth of July and reach a peak by early August. Between
middle August and middle September, employment drops significantly;
it rises and remains good until the. first day or so in November. As I
the picking of cherries is highly mechanized, the period of greatest |
continuity of good employment is the apple harvest — especially the
month of October.
FIGURE I
APPROXIMATE VARIATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND
EARNINGS ON FRUIT FARMS IN WAYNE COUNTY. NEW YORK: I9»*
A>I»1S AugunlS September 15 October 15 November 15 December IS
* ttm4 on inttnriewt of thirty fiowto. .
1/ For statistical examples of seasonal variations in harvesting na-
tionally, see Gladys K. Bowles, The Hired Farm Working Force
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report 98;
Crops Requiring Seasonal Hired Workers, (U. S. Department of
Labor); and Aura Raptcn, Seasonal Work Patterns of the Hired Farm
Working Force of 1964 (U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1965).
4727
,During the slack employment periods, some migrants on small farms
might do hourly work. Those in larger and more organized crews may
travel to other counties to work. In any case, the demand for migrant
labor during certain periods of the harvest is low, and earnings fall.
Coupled with the seasonality of harvesting, the rate paid for
the harvesting of various crops differs. The piece-rate for sweet
cherries, for sour cherries, for apples harvested early in the season
and for apples harvested late may all be different. Moreover, there
may be one rate for picking a fruit to be sold fresh and one for
picking the same fruit to be processed. Further, the rate for picking
a fruit from a tree may be different from the rate for retrieving the
same fruit from the ground. Since these activities are not performed
in the same proportion each week, fluctuations in earnings might
occur.
Another factor which causes fluctuations in the earnings of
migrant workers is the readiness of the crop for harvest. During
the first few days of the harvesting of any crop, picking is selective
so as to avoid the trees and fruit which are not ready. This selec-
tion process reduces productivity and earnings.
The work habits of some migrants may also cause fluctuations
in earnings. Many migrants have very little commitment (or reason
for commitment) to a set work schedule or to a single grower.
Consequently, a migrant may decide to work three days in one week
and six in another or he might work two hours one day and ten the
next.
-3-
4728
Likewise, he may change his employer or choose not to work because of
unsatisfactory conditions of employment, housing, or wages. Fluctua-
tions may also be the result of weather conditions. Excessive mist,
heat, or rain will reduce productivity, the total number of hours
worked, and earnings.
All these factors make it fallacious to consider one or a few
weeks as typical of migrant earnings. Figure 2 shows the results of
analyzing actual data on weekly earnings of migrants over a span of
seventeen weeks, beginning July 1 and ending November 1. This period
covers the entire harvest for the main crops of cherries and apples
in Wayne County.
FIGURE 2
WEEKLT EARHIRG1 OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS III WAYRE COURTY REM r 0R« IM
• I '
1 1 > « I I » I I II II IJ
■e it i?
For key to weeks and sample size used in this and other tables,
see Appendix, Table A-l.
-4-
4729
It can be seen that earnings often vary widely. Starting from
$40 in the first week, it rises to $86 by the fourth, falls to $38
by the ninth, and rises to $123 by the seventeenth and final week.
This see-saw effect is reflective of the weekly variation in
employment and differences in crops picked. In the first four
weeks or so, cherries are harvested; and, increasingly this is done
by machine. From the fifth to about the tenth week, there is little
harvesting except for some prunes, pears, and peaches. Many
workers do hourly work, and there is a significant drop in employ-
ment due to the fall in the demand for labor. From the tenth to
the seventeenth week, apples (which are the major hand-picked crop)
are harvested. Employment and earnings during this period are
highest. The peak occurs around the final week because of the
rush to complete harvesting before the migrants return to Florida.
As stated earlier, migrants are paid on a piece-rate basis
for picking and on a hourly basis for other chores. This means
that even hourly rates fluctuate. Since most of these nonpicking
chores are performed from the fifth through the tenth week, an
hourly rate is paid during these weeks. It was found that on the
average, this rate was $1.50 an hour. A piece-rate applies from
the first through the fourth week and from the eleventh through
the seventeenth week. To convert the piece-rate pay to hourly
terms, the earnings for each week are divided by 50. This 50,
represents the number of hours which the typical migrant works
during the apple and cherry harvests.
-5-
36-513 O - 71 - pt.7B -- 14
4730
Figure 3 shows the results. It indicates that hourly wages vary from
a low of 80c in the first important week of the season to $2.45 in
the seventeenth and final week.
FIGURE 3
HOURLY WSCI OF M GRUTORT f ARM WORKERS l« W»Y« COUNTY. REW YORK: 1(tf
OJt _ BASE
L
' I I I 1 — I — I — 1 — I
I I 1 « I I 7 I I II II U M 14 1i II "
Even the way total earnings are computed might be affected.
It will be recalled that migrant employment might be very irregular
due to the inadequate demand for their services during certain periods
of the harvest or due to their decision not to work. This irregularity
might mean the loss of several hours, days or weeks of employment.
The inefficient organization of work and use of migrants are
additional reasons for the loss of time by. migrants. Moreover, some
migrants may work very long hours during several weeks of the harvest.
All these effects are reflected in the computation of total earnings.
-6-
4731
Further, these effects prohibit any simple relationship with the
hourly or weekly earnings presented in earlier sections. For example, the
mean hourly wage over the harvest as estimated in this study is $1.62.
This is important information in itself. However, it does not give
any indication of a migrant's total earnings for the harvest. His
total earnings will vary with the number of hours, days and weeks he
works. Accordingly, the total earnings to be shown in this paper
reflect to a significant degree the irregularity of employment — the
total number of hours, days, and weeks a migrant may not work for
one reason or the other.
The total earnings to be shown are those of migrants who
worked at least the first two and last two weeks of the harvest and
at least a total of twelve weeks. These migrants can be assumed to
have been in Wayne for the entire harvest. To concentrate only on
migrants who worked each of the seventeen weeks would be very mis-
leading since it would suggest that adequate employment is always
available. In at least five weeks of the harvest, as suggested
earlier, this is not true.
Table 1 shows the total earnings of the migrants who meet the
conditions set above. It is seen that the total earnings at the
end of the 1968 harvest in Wayne range from just under $500 to just
over $1800. The median (average) earnings is $1122.
-7-
4732
TABLE 1
THE NUMBER OF WEEKS WORKED AND THE RANKING
OF MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS BY SIZE
OF TOTAL EARNINGS FOR THE
HARVEST IN WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK : 1968*
iank
Earnings
Number
Rank
Earnings
Number
(dollars)
of Weeks
(dollars)
of Weeks
1
498
12
22
1149
12
2
581
13
23
1158
16
3
627
16
24
1214
14
4
635
13
25
1265
16
5
639
15
26
1284
13
6
678
15
27
1328
17
7
682
15
28
1375
17
8
689
14
29
1454
17
9
723
16
30
1464
17
10
730
16
31
1478
17
11
804
16
32
1554
15
12
839
16
33
1617
17
13
896
13
34
1643
13
14
930
13
35
1662
17
15
1066
13
36
1670
15
16
1068
13
37
1681
16
17
1073
15
38
1687
17
18
1082
12
39
1738
17
19
1086
16
40
1751
17
20
1118
12
41
1814
13
21
1122
17**
* All the workers whose earnings are listed are considered to
be in Wayne for the entire harvest. Variations in number
of weeks worked are attributed to the irregularity of em-
ployment. See text.
** Median (average) total earnings for the harvest.
-8-
4733
JOINT REPORTING
A man, his wife, and his children will frequently work as a unit.
This means that although payroll records bear only the name of the
head of the household, they really reflect the labor and earnings of
the total family—not just a single individual. Chart 1 shows that
30 per cent of the migrant heads of household who were interviewed
indicated that their checks reflected the labor of more than one
person. Thus, a major pitfall in measuring and interpreting migrant
earnings is attributing the earnings of a multiple-person productive
unit to a single individual. This leads to an overstimation of the
earnings of individuals. For example, the earnings in Figure 4 are
impressive, but they belong to a family all reporting on the same check.
JOINT REPORTING IN MIGRANT HOUSEHOLDS IN
WAYNE COUNTY. NEW YORK: 1968
an
7%
Nombor of portom
reporting oo ami chock:
tfirao two
-9-
4734
FIGURE 4
»M _
EARNINGS RESULTING FROM MULTIPLE PERSON
PRODUCTIVE UNIT IN WAYNE COUNTY. NEW YORK: IMt*
WEEK
' ' I I I 1 I I 1 ' I ' ' I ' ' '
1 2 3 « S I J I 9 10 I! 12 13 K IS IS 17
*Tka trniiy ■ audi «p if akeat <trm wort in
FIGURE 5
A COMPARISON OF EARNINGS OF AN INDIVIDUAL
««, r.„:WGilAT0RY FARM WOfiKER AN0 0F H|S HOUSEHOLD IN WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK: 1968*
•30Q EARNINGS
12 3 4 S «
* HouiahgMcMnpriiri of two woriim
indwtduiJ urninji*
Household Mrnings*
WEEK
J I
9 1C 11 12 13
> W»f*» 9. 18, «*d 11. only individual Mined
-10-
4735
On the other hand, when each member of the household is paid
separately, it is frequently impossible to identify its members to
determine the income of the household because all its working
members might not use the same surname. This might lead to an
underestimation of the earnings of a household. Figure 5 gives an
example of the discrepancy.
MULTIPLE EMPLOYERS
The use of earnings data obtained from a single grower is likely
to lead to an underestimation of the earnings of a migrant. A
migrant might work for several growers during a harvest, and there
is frequently no centralized bookkeeping of his earnings. Away
from home, a migrant usually lives on a grower's property. This
grower is his main employer. However, once harvesting for this
grower is completed, the migrant might go to another farm in the
area to work while maintaining his residence and obligations to his
main employer. His main employer frequently will not have a record
of how much the migrant earned while working for others. Conse-
quently, the use of the payroll record of a single grower may result
in the underestimating of migrant earnings.
GROSS AND NET EARNINGS
The earnings of migrant workers can frequently be misinterpreted
unless it is specified that the figures ate gross or net of certain
adjustments.
-11-
4736
The deduction of social security, rental fees, or repayment of debt
could substantially reduce the apparent earnings of a migrant. Thus
it is necessary to distinguish between the gross earnings of a
migrant worker and his net earnings after adjustment if a serious
error in measurement is to be avoided. Figure 6 which is based on
the actual weekly earnings of a single migrant illustrates the varying
margin of error which can be committed when gross and net earnings
are confused.
FIGURE 6
AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROSS
AND NET WEEKLY EARNINGS OF A MIGRANT*
'Based on actual payroll data fori single migrant in Wayne County. New York. 1968. About 90 percent ot the
difference between gross and net earnings in this case is due to the repayment of loans tor grocery, the remainder.
* due to rental fee. repayment of transportation (approximately 5.4 per cent) and social security (4.4 per centl.
-12-
4737
DISUNIFORMITY IN METHOD OF PAYMENT AND
IN BOOKKEEPING
There is no uniform way of paying migrants. Payment is usually
on a piece-rate basis for picking, and on an hourly basis for other
chores. Moreover, as stated earlier, the going piece-rate varies
from crop to crop. It may also vary from farm to farm and among
orchards on the same farm, depending upon the difficulty of
reaching the fruit.
There are also subtle differences in the unit in which the
efforts of migrants are measured; for example, in the case of
cherries, migrants are paid by the pail while for apples they are
paid by the basket, box, bin or crate. Pails, baskets, boxes, bins
or crates differ in size. Sometimes these differences are sizeable.
One grower might use an eight-quart pail and another a twelve-quart
pail. One might use a one-bushel basket and another an eighteen or
twenty-bushel bin. Even when two containers of the same size are
used, there might be differences in when one is considered full.
The comparability of earnings might also be affected by the way
migrants are paid. Some are paid by cash, others by check. Sometimes
a grower pays a lump sum to a crew leader or contractor who in turn
disburses the funds to individual migrants. The degree of accuracy
in the transactions and in the type of records kept under these
three systems are likely to vary.
-13-
4738
As a matter of fact, the quality of record-keeping varies from
farmer to farmer. It is not unusual to find records comprising of
bits of paper. Commonly, there is no time-keeping on farm, and.
therefore no record of the actual number of hours worked by migrants.
As stated earlier, it is often impossible to tell from the records
whether wages are those of a single individual or of a family unit.
THE BONUS SYSTEM
To induce migrants to remain until the end of a harvest, growers
use a "bonus system". Sometimes this system is based on withholding
a part of the worker's earnings until the end of the season. Other
times the bonus will be in excess of the going piece-rate. The
going rate might be $4.00 a bin, but at the end of the season another
twenty-five cents may be paid for each bin picked. In measuring and
interpreting the weekly earnings of migrants, the anount as well as
the type of the bonus system must be taken into account if earnings
are to be accurately measured.
-14-
4739
COMPARABILITY OVER TIME
Perhaps one of the most dangerous pitfalls in interpreting the
earnings of migrant workers is the temptation to generalize from
one year to another. Table 2 offers an example of how much wages
might vary for the nation as well as for an individual state from
month to month and year to year. Different crop conditions from one
year to the next will frequently affect the earnings of migrants.
On the other hand, a bad crop or increased mechanization of farms
might reduce employment and earnings. The seasonal variation in
harvesting mentioned earlier, could cause earnings to vary monthly
or even weekly.
TABLE 2
: AVERAGE FARM WAGE RATES: NEW YORK STATE
AND UNITED STATES, QUARTERLY: 1964-66
Average Wage Rates Per Hour 1£
Area and Month 1966 1965 1964
Dollar Dollar Dollar
United States
January 1-24 119
April
July
1.28 1.18 1.14
1.26 1.17 1-13
SS^:::::::.:.. us 109 j.g
Annual average I-23 Xli XMO
New York
Januarv 1.28 1.22 1.21
AaDQr-ry 1.30 1.24 1.22
jPi" 1.32 1.25 122
Oclobir 1-34 1-26 1-24
Annual average 132 1-25 1.23
1/ Without board or room.
Source: William Metzler, Ralph Loomis, and Nelson
Le Ray The Frjrm Labor Situation in Select-
fill Ar^-" 1935-66. Agricultural Economic Re-
port No. 110, U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture.
-15-
4740
COMPARABILITY OVER GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
Migrant earnings are not the same across the nation. Farm wages
are highest in such states as California, Massachusetts and Connecticu
and lowest in the South—especially in South Carolina. Maitland and
Fisher have shown that there is a wide regional difference in the
wage of farm workers (not all of whom are necessarily migrants).
In some areas, like Texas and Florida, the supply of labor is the
most important reason for this variation. In other areas like Maine
and the Lake Ontario region of New York State, the demand for labor
is the most important explanatory variable. In other areas, like
Washington and part of Oregon, neither demand nor supply variables
2/
are of crucial importance. -' Other factors which might cause migrant
earnings to vary across the nation are the crops harvested, the
state minimum wage for migrants, and the extent to which farm workers
are imported. This latter factor is important, since aside from the
federal and state minimum wage laws, there is a minimum which growers
must pay domestic migrants if they intend to import foreign workers.
3/
This minimum varies from state to state. - These factors give rise
to the possibility of serious error if migrant earnings are
generalized from one region to another.
2/ Sheridan T. Maitland and Dorothy Fisher, Area Variations in the
Wages of Agricultural Labor in the United States, (U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1177, March 1958).
3/ Phyllis Groom, "Today's Farm Jobs and Farmworkers," Monthly Laboi
Review April 1967, p. 2.
-16-
4741
COMPARABILITY OF FARM AND NONFARM EARNINGS
Farm and nonfarm earnings are not strictly comparable. Unlike
the nonfarm sector, growers frequently provide housing to migrants
at no rental fee or at a nominal fee. A judgment must be made
regarding the money value of this housing. How much is this housing
worth to the migrant? How should we compute its value to them?
Should a method which reflects a fair rate of return to investment
in migrant housing be chosen over one which reflects the amount
migrants are willing and able to pay for similar housing on the open
market? Are such houses available in the open market? Should it be
assumed that the value of such housing was discounted by growers in
the determination of their wage offer? These are not easy questions
to answer. Yet, some judgment is necessary if a comprehensive picture
of migrant earnings is to be drawn.
Unlike the nonfarm sector, growers frequently make or under-
write loans to migrants at no direct charge. These loans are most
frequently made to cover transportation cost from the South to the
North or to cover grocery bills. The cost and risk associated with
the loans for grocery and similar type expenditures should be con-
sidered part of the earnings of migrants. Expenditures for transpor-
tation to and from the South is a cost for the transfer of labor;
i.e. a travel rather than a commuting expense and should, as in the
4/
nonfarm sector, be met by the employer. —
4/ It has been estimated that a third of all migrants travel 400
or more miles from home to farm and one fifth travel a thousand
or more miles. "The Migratory Farm Worker," Monthly Labor Review,
June 1968.
-17-
4742
In the farm sector, this cost is paid by the migrant (often through
a loan from the grower) „ The failure to deduct this cost when
measuring and interpreting the earnings of migrants will lead to an
overestimation of their real earnings.
Earnings in the farm and nonfarm sector differ in another way
Earnings in the farm sector are not buttressed by fringe benefits
which are typical in the nonfarm sector. A migrant earns only when
he works. If he is sick or if it rains, his productivity and number
of hours worked might fall, and so might his earnings. Migrants have
no unemployment insurance, or sick leave. Although there was a
national minimum wage of $1.15 in 1968 which rose to $1.30 in 1969,
this minimum is frequently of limited relevance since most migrants
on fruit and vegetable farms are paid on a piece-rate basis for most
of their work. Thus, when comparing the earnings of migrants with
those of nonfarm workers, it is important to remember the high,
unprotected risk associated with migrant earnings.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has discussed major pitfalls in the measurement and
interpretation of migrant workers. It has attempted to show that:
seasonal as well as other fluctuations in migrant earnings mean that
no single week or two may be taken as typical; joint reporting makes
it difficult to distinguish the contribution of an individual from
that of a family; the payroll record of a single grower might not
give the total earnings of a migrant; gross earnings are frequently
well above net earnings; the method and rate of pay vary by crop,
-18-
4743
chore, and unit of measurement of work; the bonus system distorts
weekly earnings; the earnings of migrant workers are not strictly
comparable over time, region, or with nonfarm earnings.
A study which I conducted in Wayne County, New York in 1968,
took these pitfalls into account. The following conclusions were
drawn from the data. —
The analysis of the weekly earnings and hourly wages of
migrants reveal the following:
1. Migrant earnings vary widely from week to week
during the harvest. From a low $40 in the first
week, it reaches a high of $123 in the final
week.
2. Hourly rates, like weekly earnings, vary widely
from week to week. At its lowest it is 80c, and
at its highest it is $2.45.
3. Over the entire harvest, migrants may net 47c more
per hour than the federal minimum for agriculture;
and 22c more than the proposed state minimum for
agriculture.
4. Assuming that an individual migrant could be
employed in his home state of Florida at the
prevailing rate for laborers, he sacrifices an
average of 45c an hour for every hour he works
over the seventeen-week harvest in Wayne.
The analysis of the total earnings of migrants at the end of the
harvest shows the following:
1. The average migrant earns $1122.
2. A worker who has a steady job at the lower
federal minimum for agriculture or at the
proposed state minimum for agriculture,
might nevertheless earn more than a large
number of migrants over the period of the
harvest. This is due to the irregularity
of migrant employment.
5/ See Herrington J. Bryce, op_. cit. I have attempted to recommend
policies for improving migrant earnings in "Alternative Policies
for Increasing the Earnings of Migratory Farm Workers,"
Public Policy (Spring 1970).
-19-
4744
3. A migrant who could get a steady job as a
laborer in his home state of Florida is
likely to sacrifice at least $410 by coming
to Wayne. This is due both to the irre-
gularity of employment and the lower wages
in Wayne o
4. The cost of the irregularity of employment to
the average migrant during the season is
likely to be nearly $370.
The hourly wages of migrants in Wayne County are higher than
state or federal legal requirements. However, for many migrant
workers the irregularity of migrant employment makes it less profit-
able over the harvest than a steady job at the lower legal rates.
Moreover, a person who could be employed at a steady job as a non-
agricultural laborer in Florida (the home state of many Wayne
migrants) would be better off doing so than coming to Wayne as a
migrant. This latter point is true because his potential hourly
wages, regularity of employment and, consequently, total earnings are
likely to be less in Wayne. These findings might provide one reason
why growers have been experiencing increasing difficulties in
attracting the migrants they wish, although they might pay higher
rates than are legally required.
-20-
4745
Appendix
TABLE A-l
KEY TO WEEKS AND SAMPLE SIZE
Number of Workers in Sample*
58
76
78
66
65
60
57
57
47
57
74
85
87
89
87
83
48
•Sample size varies because the number of workers reporting
some earnings each week varies.
Week
Date
Number
1
July 7 - 13
2
14-20
3
21 - 27
4
28 - Aug. 3
5
Aug. 4 - 10
6
11 - 17
7
18-24
8
25-31
9
Sept. 1 - 7
10
8 - 14
11
15-21
12
22- 28
13
29 • Oct. 5
14
Oct. 6 - 12
15
13 - 19
16
20 - 26
17
27 - Nov. 1
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B
4746
Appendix
TABLE A- 2
AVERAGE HOURLY RATE
AND NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BY
MIGRATORY FARM WORKERS
IN WAYNE COUNTY, NEW YORK, 1968:
BY WEEK
Week
Date
i
Average
Average
Number
Hourly
Number
Rate*
of Hours
Worked
1
July 7 - 13
$0.80
50
2
14-20
0.82
50
3
21 - 27
0.98
50
4
28 - Aug. 3
1.70
50
5
Aug. 4 - 10
1.50
41
6
11 - 17
1.50
37
7
18 - 24
1.50
29
8
25-31
1.50
37
9
Sept. 1 - 7
1.50
26
10
8 - 14
1.50
32
11
15 -21
1.50
53
12
22- 28
2.00
50
13
29 - Oct. 5
2.08.
50
U
Oct. 6 - 12
1.98
50
15
13 - 19
2.38
50
16
20 - 26
1.86
50
17
27 - Nov. 1
2.46
50
It is assumed that the average worker worked 50 hours a week
during the first through the fourth and the twelfth through the
seventeenth week of the harvest: and that the average hourly
rate during fifth through the eleventh weeks is $1.50.
4747
LABOR WASTE IN NEW YORK:
RURAL EXPLOITATION AND
MIGRANT WORKERS
WILLIAM H. FRIEDLAND
Reprinted from February, 1969 TVtfnj-action, pages 48-53
Copyright 1969 by Transaction, Inc., St. Louis
4748
Labor Waste in New York
Rural Exploitation and
Migrant Workers
By overlooking his inefficiency the migrant employer
is harming himself and exploiting the laborer
WILLIAM H. FRIEDLAND
Ever since Congress restricted the importation of Mexican
"braceros" into the United States in 1963, farmers have
complained about a shortage of seasonal workers to har-
vest their crops. In fact the number of migrant workers
began to decline in the late 1950s. Due in part to mechani-
zation, the decreasing availability of labor created uncer-
tainty among agricultural employers. The removal of more
than 150,000 foreign agricultural workers from the labor
force in 1964 compounded their anxieties.
While the cutback in foreign labor only indirectly af-
fected East coast agriculture (it had mainly depended on
domestic workers), the labor shortage was keenly felt. In
New York State, in particular, the number of interstate farm
workers has decreased by more than 40 percent since 1955.
New York State farmers interviewed during the summer of
1966 uniformly complained about the amount of crops to
be harvested and the small numbers of workers coming
North. Camps were not filled to capacity. To salvage the
potatoes that might otherwise be left in the ground, they
finally offered college and high-school students in Central
New York double the wage rate paid to migrants.
The farmers attributed the decline of migrant workers
to several factors. They felt that the general increase in
non-agricultural employment in the United States drew
workers out of agriculture. The cessation of migration
from Mexico had made East coast migrants interesting to
employers elsewhere and incentives were being offered to
redirect the labor supply to the Midwest and California.
The farmers also contended that the increased stability in
employment and longer growing season in Florida cut
down the numbers of people who might otherwise move
North.
Troubled by the shortage of migrants, many farmers be-
lieved that mechanization was the solution to their prob-
lems. In some cases, mechanization was out of the question
either because the hardware had not been developed or be-
cause the equipment costs were too high. In others,
TRANSACTION
4749
Although some migrants work
lost valued skill.
ch as this potato conveyor, most do stoop work in the fields. Picking ability is still the
he farmers favored mechanization but were reluctant to
Imploy it since they believed that migrant crews would by-
pass their area, leaving the crops that could not be handled
|>y a machine unharvested.
Though the farmers were convinced that the decline in
he number of migrants was serious, my study of migrant
abor practices in New York State indicates that the short-
ige is due more to their inefficient use. Each day time was
vasted because of inadequate scheduling, planning, and
direction. A system which is inefficient and allows for
naximum exploitation and minimum incentive to the mi-
grant worker was observed.
Labor Waste
On New York State farms, labor is still treated as if it
had no intrinsic value; its use is based upon attitudes and
Datterns that were developed when labor was plentiful
ind cheap. The following list incorporates some of the
forms of labor wastage found in migrant camps during
:he summer of 1966:
Wastage: Poor Scheduling
1. In many crews there is no set time when work begins
ind considerable time is therefore wasted as crew members
»re assembled in the morning. The same is true at the end
}f the day; rumors spread that work is to end shortly and
workers stop, only to find that the crew leader expects
:hem to continue. Because there is no fixed time for quit-
ting, the bulk of the crew must wait until a few slower
pickers fill out their last unit.
2. Crews are often rushed to the fields only to wait — up
to IV2 hours — for the crops to dry.
3. Crews are occasionally assigned to pick a field for the
second time when a richer first-pick field is available.
4. A small field can be completed in a half day is as-
signed to a crew; under such circumstances, workers often
refuse to move to another field.
5. When a move is necessary during the day, long dis-
tances between fields frequently discourage workers.
FEBRUARY 19W
6. In some cases fields have to be prepared before work-
ers can begin picking (e.g., potatoes) . Such preparatory
work usually is not done in advance and the crew must
wait until it is.
Wastage: Poor Planning
1. Where a child-care center is available, it often does
not open on time. In such cases, the entire crew must wait
until the center opens for the children.
2. Lunch wagons often fail to appear and workers either
have to work on empty stomachs or make trips to stores to
purchase food.
3. The failure to provide hampers, on occasion, means
that the crop is stacked on the ground. Workers later have
to load the crop in a second (and unpaid) operation.
4. After the field is picked, the crew has to remain until
the crop can be weighed. The weighing trucks are often
late.
Wastage: Poor Direction
1. Fields are not always easy to find and drivers oc-
casionally lose their way.
2. Crews must wait until the crew leader and the farmer
confer over which fields are to be picked.
3. The failure of the farmer to be on hand when the
crew appears means that the crew is idle.
4. Confusion in lining workers up in the fields frequent-
ly means false starts or other irritations.
5. On completion of the job, the crew occasionally
must wait on the bus while the crew leader negotiates pay-
ments.
Wastage: Poor Equipment
1 . Many busses are unable to start.
2. Busses break down en route to or on return from
the fields.
3. Hoes and other tools are not sharp and are not pre-
pared for workers on their arrival.
The burden of labor wastage is placed directly upon the
migrant; the time wasted is time he is not paid for. But
40
4750
given the existence of alternative forms of employment
today, the old structure of migrant labor with its inherent
defects in planning work has created a burden for the
farmer as well. Employer attitudes have produced, over
the years, a continual deterioration in the work attitudes of
the migrants.
Farmers look upon their workers in much the same way
that industrial employers did many years ago. Typically,
farm employers express beliefs that migrants are lazy aij.
that little or nothing can be done to increase productivit;,
They frequently contend that "there's no point in payit,;
higher wages, they'll still quit when they've earned $3 f J
the day." Whether true or not, this attitude toward er
ployees precludes any serious approach to change tlj
situation. Indeed, farmers have developed a whole systei
of practices that prevent greater efficiency. The prime e|
Migrant Workers:
How They Live
During the summer of 1966, migrant labor camps in New
York State were studied, two intensively through the method
of participant observation. Both camps were occupied by
Negro crews. The Main Camp, owned and operated by a
farmers' cooperative, housed up to 750 people and was shared
by seven crews. For the most part, each crew lived as
though it were in a separate camp. A small, single crew setup.
Short Camp handled no more than 50 people. Because of
its size, it did not have the auxiliary facilities of a mail
service and pay phone provided at the Main Camp.
Crew Leaders
Four types of crew leaders were observed in the intensively
studied camps. Each had his own style of leadership which,
in turn, produced significant variations in the social inter-
action and work productivity of his crew.
The Village Chief: Goober's crew was among the largest,
recruited almost entirely from his home town. Families and
older people regularly went North to the Main Camp with
him and were controlled through a system of social dependen-
cy. Beyond the normal credit arrangements for food, Goober
provided transportation to town, loaned money on occasion,
and purchased Cokes and other small favors for crew chil-
dren. Significantly, productivity in Goober's crew was high.
His members were selected with great care and before the
end of August, only one percent had dropped out of his crew.
The Paler Familial: With a large number of sons, daugh-
ters and grandchildren augmented by distant kin, Big Dad-
dy's crew had a remarkable record of productivity — the high-
est in Main Camp. Additional members were recruited hap-
hazardly as Big Daddy started the trip north but by the end
of the season, he was left almost largely with his kin.
The Coal Baron: Feared and disliked by most crew mem-
bers, Tim exerted force either through the manipulation of
wages and credit, through threats that he wouldn't pay
wages or through physical force. Most crew members were
young, single men picked up as he traveled north, recruited
with promises of high wages and excellent living conditions.
From the day his crew arrived in camp, members dropped
out and before a month was over, he lost over half his crew.
The Manipulative Democrat: Lincoln had no kin within his
crew other than his wife and young children but the crew .
had been assembled with some care. Because it was small, he
had continuous contact with each person. He rarely issuij
unilateral orders and sought to control his crew throud
consensus. Carefully structuring the basic arguments befol
asking his questions, his point of view usually prevailed. Lill
the Village Chief, he manipulated social dependency link!
lending his truck to responsible crew members so they couil
travel to meet people in other camps. At Short Camp, this w.J
an important favor for the young men since the crew hsl
few unattached women. Like Goober, Lincoln's dropout ral
was negligible.
Crew Members
The crew members differentiated themselves according to I
prestige system that places those with picking ability at til
top. Although productivity was fairly low, the ability to picl
well was regarded as a significant skill. Benjamin, a notorioil
alcoholic in Goober's crew, was able to claim high prestid
because of his productivity.
Verbal and game skills were also highly valued. Migrar!
workers frequently engage in rapid, semi-humorous an
hostile repartee including "playing the dozens" — the aim cl
which is to defeat an opponent by attacking his mother. Thl
ability to play cards and checkers as well as several game!
which are not found in white society were sources of en]
hanced status too.
Within almost every crew there were homosexuals, usuall
only among the males. Homosexuality was treated negativel
but semi-humorously. In Goober's crew, for instance, on
homosexual called "Marilyn Monroe" dressed as a femall
and was referred to as "she" and "her." Marilyn Monro
used toilet facilities indiscriminately and was accepted ill
both male and female units. "She" was accepted with affec
tionate contempt by crew members.
Alcoholics were at the bottom of the scale, recognized witl
almost universal contempt by other crew members. Mos]
were unable to work or could rarely earn more than a dol
lar or two per day. They constituted an economic drain on thJ
other workers who felt obliged to provide them with, a
least, the remnants of food.
Crew Culture
The most significant aspect of life in the migrant campi
was the lack of trust between members of the same crew
with regard to money, clothing and personal possessions. Th(
doors to rooms were almost always locked even if a crew
member was leaving for only a brief period of time. Then
was a higher degree of trust in kinship relations but even her<
we found a substantial amount of suspicion.
The high level of violence found in migrant labor camps is
due mostly to the instability of life there. When there is rela-
tively little work, and crew members have no income, tension;
and anxieties are immediately manifested through fights. On
TRANS-ACTION
4751
inple of this is the continued dependence of many farmers
li the crew leader.
| Most farmers prefer to avoid contacts with migrants and
lave the control of work to the crew leader. An ex-migrant
Iho becomes a labor contractor by virtue of his ability to
brchase or inherit the means of transportation, the crew
lader is the primary mediating influence between the
orkers and the farmer. Because white employers feel that
ie whole, the patterns of violence found in the camps were
;ry limited, consisting almost entirely of fist fights and oc-
isional knife fights. When these occurred, slashing but not
abbing was the rule.
Migrants almost invariably direct their tensions inwardly
gainst each other. The one manifestation of violence against
ie external society was in the form of property damage,
hiring a cold spell at Main Camp, a pump house was de-
:royed to build fires since the heat in the housing units was
ot turned on. But property damage was not always directed
> practical ends. At times, parts of buildings might be torn
own for no ostensible purpose while migrants watched and
mghed.
There were two sharply divergent tendencies toward work.
'here were those who took considerable pride in their ability
j pick and those who had a cooler attitude. Both could
e present in the same person at different times depending on
hysical and personal conditions. Demonstrations of the
bility to outpick one's friend occurred frequently as individ-
lal competitiveness was valued. But when fields were bad,
vhen workers were brought in for a second picking, when
ong periods of time had been wasted getting to the fields,
workers not only had little direct interest in their work but
.ctively discouraged others from working. During gloomy
>eriods, the workers expressed distrust of the entire system,
ommenting that the weighing scales were fixed, that the
:rew leaders and farmers were cheating the workers.
The migrant's life is dominated by fear of the larger white
lociety. "Split personalities" were prevalent; many migrants
vere hostile and aggressive toward other migrants while they
were meek and fearfufof whites. Fear was illustrated by the
migrants are unpredictable and violent, and because crew
members — mostly Negro — view the white world as un-
predictable and dangerous, both depend on the crew leader.
In a variety of roles, he has enormous power over his
crew and their productivity.
An owner of transportation, usually school busses and
trucks, the crew leader is also an entrepreneur in the sense
that he risks his capital in contracts with employers
hesitation of migrants to ask for the key to the men's room
while their truck was at the gas pump. While shopping, ex-
treme caution was displayed in entering stores.
The migrants in Main Camp, however, had considerable
contact with the outside society. Besides their contacts with
social-service agencies, the camp was prey to a host of in-
dividuals—mainly Negro — from nearby communities. Some,
who were ex-migrants, came to encourage friends to move to
town. But most came to make money. On weekend evenings,
a large number of visitors came to gamble. They moved
from one "juke" (camp restaurant) to another. Several would
enter the juke together and begin to gamble, eventually at-
tracting the migrants. The migrant was usually the loser since
the visitors would break up a game when a buddy was losing.
"The Sunday bazaar" was another form of parasitism. The
camp then became an outlet for secondhand and sometimes
stolen goods. Hawkers urged migrants to put a down pay-
ment on TV bargains. Everything from toothbrushes to
stereo sets were offered at prices that could be bargained on.
Many of the larger items were sold by the "black-market
man" and were believed to be, and might have been, stolen
goods. Prices were high for some commodities given the con-
dition of the goods; old and discolored clothing at $1.10
for a shirt, $2.00 for pants, and 250 for socks; a secondhand
watch cost $7.50; $40 could buy an unseen stereo. Some
hawkers were professional, others merely families selling
personal goods.
Material adapted from William H. Friedland's "Migrant Labor: A
Form of Intermittent Social Organization," ILR Research, Vol. HI,
No. 2, November 1967, prepared with the assistance of Dorothy
Nelkin.
to the camps, fighting, gambling and horseplay
4752
and in recruiting workers. Once he arrives North, the
crew leader's role changes to that of camp manager. Respon-
sible for the direction and maintenance of his crew within
the camp, he provides food, alcohol, and auxiliary services
including transportation. He maintains law and order in the
camp, transports labor to the work site and, at the field,
acts as job foreman allocating specific tasks to workers,
managing all aspects of the operation until the produce is
actually delivered to the packing houses. In addition, the
crew leader serves as a banker to his crew, lending them
money either directly or through credit for food, alcohol
or transportation.
The crew leader can sometimes earn as much money, if
not more, from these peripheral roles than he can from the
output of his crew. Indeed, when the farmer abdicates
control of work organization to the crew leader, he yields
it to a person whose interests in productivity have little
relation to his. But though the crew leader has many
talents, he is in most cases unable to cope with the prob-
lems of effectively managing workers.
The maintenance of control within the camp and the
work place, for example, is one crucial responsibility that
the crew leader honors more in the breach than in reality.
Theoretically, his role as "provider" gives him the leverage
to control the output of his crew, to ensure that workers
turn out for work every day and that they work steadily
and regularly in the fields. The crew leader, however, has
little experience preparing him to deal directly with prob-
lems of efficiency let alone the power to make decisions
and plans crucial to determining the organization of work.
More than half of the examples of wastage cited above
are beyond his control, developed in part from the lack
of communication between employer and those working
for him.
Migrant Attitudes Toward Work
The effects of labor wastage upon the migrant are clear.
In none of the examples cited are migrants paid for time
lost. The migrant can only conclude, and does, that his
time has no value. Prey to the other exploitative structures
(the high cost of credit, food, and alcohol) and other
debilitating experiences (the lack of control within the
camps, the unpredictability of life, and the non-existence of
savings structures), the migrant has little incentive to work
more effectively or to accumulate income. The daily loss of
time, frequently amounting to 25 percent of work time,
cannot possibly be conducive to productivity. If it is made
continually clear to a person that his time is of no value,
it can hardly be expected that he will hurry to get on the
bus in the morning or utilize his time well while in the
fields.
No attempt is being made here to argue that migrants
have a "Protestant Ethic" toward work which is drained
from them by the present structure. In all employment situ-
ations, there are many types of attitudes toward work:
attitudes that support working hard and others that do not.
But in all employment relationships it is necessary to create
structures which maximize the productivity of all em-
ployees. Although many migrants come North with the
intention of earning more than a subsistence wage, pro-
ductivity even among the best workers is low. Their inten-
tions are rapidly squelched by two aspects of the presen
structure of migrant labor.
First the system of employee recruitment is inadequat
and imposes serious economic hardships on the migrant
Because of the ostensible shortage of workers, farmers al
too frequently hoard labor by getting their crews on han<
early or by keeping them between an early and a lat
season. Thus, already in debt to the crew leader who usual
Iy supports him en route, the migrant arrives in camp onl'
to find that work will be sparse for some time. During thi
period, his debt to the crew leader who supplies food
credit, increases. By the time the season starts, the worker'
expectations have been realistically set at simply maintain
ing himself.
Asked how much money they expected to take bad
South, one migrant summed up most attitudes saying: "I'l
break even; I came up with nothing and I'll leave wit]
nothing." Some replied that they might make $30 or "$100
$200 if I'm lucky." The northern trip is now viewed
necessary to "get through" the year while work in the Soutl
is seen as a time when some money is made. Based on th
low wage levels and irregularity of work in New Yorl
State, these attitudes create the "$3-a-day" syndrome witf
which farmers justify their low wages.
Second, low productivity is related to the day-to-i
organization of work in the fields. Sending a crew to ;
field which has had a first picking or to a small field which
can be finished in less than a day, or where, for whatevei
reason, the picking is poor, is feasible only when there is
a surplus of labor. Not only is the work slower and more
tiring in such fields but a change of fields during the daj
entails a loss of time in transport. Workers become dis
couraged and refuse to continue to work.
Until closer planning and scheduling are introduced, the
present organization of work cannot yield higher output;
by migrants. Discouraged by the conditions, migrants have1
developed four responses:
1. Griping. "They have no business bringing people
a field like this." "I'll never come North again; it's not
worth it."
2. The walk-off. If the field is considered poor, migrants
will leave saying, "It doesn't pay to kill yourself for things
like this."
3. "Target" working. "I'll just get enough to buy my
dinner and a bottle and I'll quit."
4. The slow-down. This most common response occurs
particularly when workers are paid by the hour but is also
found on piecework jobs. The technique is old and well-
established: one looks busy by standing or squatting in a
working position without doing much work. If one works
harder than the others, on hourly work, sanctions are strong
and immediate: "Don't take us out of a job."
Even for the productive individual, the organization of
work is a discouraging one. Movements of crew, poor fields,
poor planning and scheduling, and breakdowns of equip-
ment mean that he can rarely earn $10 a day even if he
is prepared to work extremely bard. Exploitation by the1
crew leader and the difficulty of saving money all add up
to few built-in incentives that can support the productive
worker. He soon takes on the attitudes of the prevalent
migrant culture or drops out of the migrant labor stream.
TRANS ArTION
4753
In 1952, Arthur M. Ross and Samuel Liss prepared a re-
port for a Senate hearing on migrant labor saying:
. . the contractor system is a highly effective device for
transferring the risk of agricultural employment to the
workers. It is a sound principle of industrial relations
that the various economic risks incident to employment
ought to be distributed fairly or else insured against.
This principle is notably absent in agricultural harvest
work. Anyone familiar with urban industrial relations
would suppose, for example, that employers would have
some responsibility for workers who are brought to a
work situation and held there for several weeks although
no work is furnished to them. In agriculture, however,
it frequently happens that the workers are brought into
a grower's camp, upon specific instruction from the
grower, several weeks before they are needed, and re-
main entirely on their own until work begins, unless
public charity is available or the contractor is willing to
give advances of money or of credit. The situation is
the same whether the lack of work is due to the vagaries
of weather, the conditions of the market, miscalculation
on the part of the grower, or any other reason. . . .
Whatever the source of risk, it is borne by the individuals
who are least able to undertake it.
Seventeen years later little has changed despite the fact
that Public Law 414 adopted in 1963 requires the registra-
uon of labor contractors and the exclusion of non-Ameri-
:ans from seasonal work. The system remains much as Ross
ind Liss described it and the migrant workers themselves —
hose least able to undertake the cost of the risks of harvest
— continue to sustain most of its costs because of an out-
moded system of production.
But the adoption of Public Law 414 has created the base
for a serious change in agriculture. The shortage of labor
jit imposes by its restrictions on braceros, can induce farmers
:o change the organization of work and control of labor.
[Pressure to develop techniques for effective manpower
(direction can be applied by farmers on the agricultural
|:olleges, research stations and extension services that have
Imade American agriculture the powerful force it is today.
Vet as long as farmers continue to look to "hardware" as
IJie only solution to their problems, labor will continue to
be managed by mechanization, by getting rid of it.
• The long experience of industry will have to be brought
ito bear on the managerial problem. Farmers will have to
internalize the idea that labor has intrinsic cash value and
'hat its efficient organization is crucial to the farmers" own
welfare. The incentives which must be brought to a new
organization of work not only have to do with better wages
fbut with better planning, organizing, scheduling, and con-
■trolling. When those people interested in more than
jminimal survival learn that they can earn money, the trip
North will again become attractive to better workers.
I Any conclusions with respect to policy must be formu-
lated in the most tentative way since the research reported
jhere is preliminary and much additional work remains to
i be done. The experience of field work, however, indicates
jthat careful planning of an even rudimentary nature can
jeliminate some of forms of wastage noted. Individual
Ifarmers, for example, can provide crew leaders and their
|bus drivers with maps that get them to the fields without
getting lost. Scheduling of work can take place more ef-
fectively. Farmers can exercise greater control over order
in their camps rather than abdicating their responsibility.
Savings systems can be created to encourage better workers
to accumulate money. Or farmers can insist that pricing of
food provided by the crew leader be less exploitative.
While these and many other changes are possible, the
likelihood remains that mechanisms that ensure greater
equality in the sharing of economic risks will be required
if a significant proportion of the migrant population is to
be effected. The experience of urban industry has shown
that only when the employer bears the financial costs of
inefficiency does he become significantly motivated to in-
sure more effective management.
Legislation requiring door-to-door wages (from the
South) , the guarantee of an eight-hour day after arrival in
the North and/or the guarantee of a fixed number of days
of work are just some ways the risks of harvest can be
redistributed. Until the cash value of labor is made explicit
to agricultural employers through external pressure, few
changes in farmer attitudes will be forthcoming. Legislation
that throws the burden of risk upon farmers would pro-
duce an immediate reaction from the research agencies as-
sociated with agriculture who would begin to provide
techniques of more effective management almost immediate-
ly. The consequences for efficiency in agriculture and living
standards for migrant workers would be enormous.
FURTHER READING SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHOR:
Men on the Move by Nels Anderson (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1940). Although outdated, this is a definitive
sociological work on agricultural workers.
The Slaves We Rent by Truman Moore (New York: Random
House, 1965) is a first-class journalistic account of the situation
of migrant workers throughout the country.
The Ground Is Our Table by Steve Allen (New York: Doubleday,
1966). Written in anger from his personal experiences with
poverty, this book focuses on agricultural labor in the Southwest
and includes an enthusiastic endorsement of the Chavez
organization.
Farmers, Workers and Machines: Technological and Social Change
in Farm Industries of Arizona by Harland Padfield and William E.
Martin (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1965). This book
contains economic data on various crops and also empirical data
on agricultural workers in Arizona with special emphasis on
differences in ethnic groups.
William H. Friedland is associate professor, New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
In July, 1969 he will join the University of California at Santa
Cruz as professor of community studies and sociology. His prior
research followed from field work in Africa, primarily Tanzania,
and he is currently preparing a book dealing with migrant labor
as a social system with Dorothy Nelkin.
FEBRUARY 1969
4754
AGRIBUSINESS, U.S.A.:
Management Responsible Only To Itself
A Background Paper by A. V. Krebs Jr.
No class of people or type of worker in America today have
become more thoroughly exposed to the raw corporate power
of the American economic system than the nation* s 3*1
million farm workers.
Between i960 and 1967 corporations in the United States
had $421.6 billion left over after payments to stockholders.
After investing $365*8 billion in new plants and equipment
there remained some $55 • 8 billion.
As many corporations begin to plow these enormous resources
into agriculture and tighten their grip on the vertical
Integration of the food industry they assume in A. A. Berle's
words "self-contained control and management is thus res-
ponsible to Itself. "
In seeking to discover who are America's "new farmers" an
observation by Nicholas Pileggi In a May 18, 1968
Saturday Evening Post article on the Harvard School of
Business is worth noting.
Novitiates of a new priesthood, B School students
have been trained to administer giant corporations,
not to own them; to plan cities, not to govern
them; to organize underdeveloped countries, not to
run them. They have learned that it is nobler to
manage than to possess, because In administration
lies real power.
It Is this power which is part of the everyday reality in a
farm worker's life and which most Americans still mistake
for the hardiness, lndustriousness and independence which
characterized the farmer of an era rapidly fading from the
American rural scene.
In 1968 with cash receipts from farm marketings over $48
billion, food was this country's largest industry. The
$124.6 billion consumers spent for food during the year
was over 23# of their total consumption expenditures.
- 1 -
4755
The millions of Jobs now dependent on the transporting,
processing and packaging of food are vital to the economy
of the world's most affluent nation.
Yet the person who is in large measure responsible for
this wealth and abundance, the American farm worker,
continues to remain economically powerless. As the 1969
Report of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Migratory
Labor stated: "No other segiment of our population is so
poorly paid yet contributes so much to our Nation's
health and welfare."
Denied by law the right to organize and bargain collective-
ly, excluded in several states from minimum wage laws, the
farm worker with a 1968 average wage of $1.^3 an hour still
ranks lowest in annual income of all our Nation's
occupational groups.
Contract Construction $^»^9
All Manufacturing f^'0^
Lumber and Wood Products $2.62
Canning, cured & frozen foods $2.38
In light of these few statistics it is time the plight of
the farm worker be studied in terms of the nature of the
economic system which creates and prolongs his poverty
rather than by simply focusing on his material condition.
This paper, which is only a prospectus for a much broader
planned study on the present corporate structure of agri-
business in the United States, is an effort to examine
that economic system.
II
The predominant trend in agribusiness today is toward
corporation farming. Each day there is news of large
corporations buying up land, farms, feed lots, mills, pro-
cessing and distributing outlets.
A 1969 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey of h7 states
not including California showed farms operated by
corporations owned over 53 million acres of land. Fifty-
four percent of these corporations were formed since i960.
- 2 -
4756
In 14 states with 1967 farm marketings totaling $11.5
billion (28# of the total U.S. marketings) less than 50%
of these marketings came from family farms. In 1969 over
Jh% of the hired farm work force were employed in the four
states of Arizona, Florida, California and Texas where
corporate farming has made its greatest impact. Family farm
sales in these states were:
Arizona 11%
Florida 20#
California 21%
Texas k8%
A preliminary examination of these figures would seem to
indicate that those farms (large corporate farms) who hire
the most labor are best suited financially to pay their
workers a Just and living wage.
Who are some of these corporations and what are their
activities in agriculture?
* Sterling Precision Corp. of New York, a maker of in-
dustrial equipment, has bought 84,000 acres of land in
Arizona and is rapidly adding to its 5000 cultivated
acres.
* International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. has agreed to
acquire Gwaltney Inc., a food processing company for
758,664 common shares of ITT, valued at approximately
$41.9 million.
* Dow Chemical Financial Corp., a subsidiary of the Dow
Chemical Co. purchased in 1969 some 17,000 acres of land
In Arizona and California from Bud Antle, Inc., reportedly
at the time the world's largest lettuce grower.
* Stratford of Texas, Inc. has agreed to acquire M-G Inc.
of Weimar, Texas for approximately $5,6 million in
common shares of stock. M-G distributes livestock feed
through 150 dealers, sells eggs and controls the Longview
Texas National Bank. Stratford is engaged in farming and
minerals development.
* Tenneco Inc. has acquired Heggblade-Marguleas Co., a San
Francisco- based agricultural producer and sales agent.
Tenneco has indicated its new subsidiary will manage the
agricultural lands, packing houses and prospective pre-
packaging facilities of the Kern County Land Co., another
Tenneco subsidiary.
- 3 -
4757
* Although the transaction was terminated upon the death of
Mormon Church leader David 0. McKay, the GAC Corp., a
diversified holding company, was seeking to buy 265,000
acres of Florida land from its owners, the Mormon Church.
* Southern Pacific Co. has announced plans to accelerate
development of 3,855,000 acres of its land in California,
Nevada and Utah through a subsidiary, Southern Pacific
Land Co. Most of this land was given to SP in the form
of federal grants during the building of the first
transcontinental railroad in the 18 60s.
* In 1968 the H.J. Heinz Co., through a subsidiary of its
Ore-Ida frozen potato products division, planted 9000
acres of potatoes in Western Oregon.
» Big canners like Minute Maid Groves Corp., a subsidiary
of Coca Cola Co. and Llbby, McNeill and Libby now own
an estimated 20# of Florida's citrus groves, compared
with less than one percent in i960.
These few examples of the wholesale emergence of large corp-
orations investing in agriculture suggests to many that
agriculture could within a few years become what would
amount to a closed corporation.
Eric Thor, former University of California Extension
Agricultural economist, has suggested that it is entirely
possible in the not too distant future that a half dozen
such large corporations could easily control the production
of all California's fruits, nuts and vegetables, which in
turn accounts for k0% of the total U.S. production in
these catagories.
This growing exclusiveness in the nation's food industry
is also reflected in the observation of Dr. Wlllard F.
Mueller, former chief accountant for the Federal Trade
Commission, regarding the food retailing industry:
If the top 20 chains of i960 and all other chains
with 11 or more stores were to continue to expand
their market shares at the respective rates which
they experienced between 195^ and 1958, by about
198^ chains of 11 or more stores (about 180 of
them) would be doing all of the grocery store
business, with the top 20 of i960 doing Sk% and
all others 16%,
- 4 -
4758
At a time when the general public is being repeatedly told
that the nation's farmers are in serious financial
difficulties what does a large corporation see In
agriculture?
Profit:
As CBK Agronomics Inc., an organization formerly interested
in women's apparel, foreign films, asphalt and label-print-
ing but now investing in agriculture, explains, commercial
farming operations reap profits "well above the average on
invested capital. "
Rudolph A. Peterson, retired president of Bank of America,
has also noted:
The studies I have seen stratify return on in-
vestment up to sales of $20,000 per year and then
lump together all farms with sales of over
$20,000. These studies indicate that farms with
sales in excess of $20,000 per year earn a rate
of return on investment equal to or better than
they could earn in other potential investments.
It is not surprising, therefore, that large corporations
and conglomerates have chosen agriculture as the most
lucrative field in which they can invest their many
billions of dollars.
In examining these current trends in American agribusiness
the mistake should not be made that somehow all this Is
simply part of the changing times, one of the byproducts
of progress. As Tony T. Dechant, President of the National
Farmers Union, has observed:
I do not believe that we should concern ourselves
only with trying to decide what the future of
American agriculture is going to be but what
it should be. We should not accept any trend as
inevitable. Trends are made by our public policy,
not born of the wedding of inscrutable and un-
controllable forces. What Is happening In America
Is because of our public policy not in spite
of It.
Through a combination of policies the U.S. government has
probably done more than any single Institution in our nation
to encourage the present trend in agribusiness toward
corporation farming.
- 5 -
4759
Sen. Lee Metcalf (Dem. -Montana) has pointed out that one of
these policies created the "tax farmer," e.g., people who
engage in farming for the purpose of creating losses which
can be used to offset substantial amounts of their non-farm
income. As Senator Metcalf notes,
. . . the tax farmers are more interested in
farming the Internal Revenue Code than they are
the land, and are making it increasingly diffi-
cult for true farmers to earn a fair and an
adequate rate of return on their effort and
Investment.
Subsidies, however, more than any other single government
policy has given major impetus to corporations getting into
agriculture. Both crop subsidies under the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service and water subsidies
under the Department of Interior's 160-acre Reclamation
Act have turned over billions of taxpayer dollars to large
landowners throughout the country.
These subsidies have enabled rich farmers to get richer
while those farmers which the two acts were meant to help
get poorer. In 1969 over $3.5 billion was appropriated for
crop subsidies. Less than $400 million, however, was
divided up among one million farmers while 100,000 farmers
were receiving over $1.6 billion.
No one area in the United States typifies better the social
and economic inequality that crop and water subsidies have
created than the Westlands Water District in California's
San Joaquin Valley. Covering 450,000 acres of land the
Westlands is getting water from the San Luis Reclamation
Project, a $157 million federal and state water project.
The federal subsidy toward the cost of water in this area
is approximately $1000 an acre.
In the Westlands, an area about two- thirds the sixe of
Rhode Island, there are 240 landowners. The National Farmers
Union has estimated that with a family farm containing 40
acres of deciduous fruits and nuts, or 80 acres in truck,
tomato and field crops, and 160 acres in meat production,
the San Luis project could support 6100 farms of varying
size.
Compare those figures with the reality of the Westlands
today as shown in the chart below:
- 6 -
Name
Southern Pacific
J.G. Boswell
Boston Ranch
Miller-Lux
(lease)
Giffen family
* Giffen, Inc. only
4760
Acreage Est. Water Subsidy 1969 ASCS Payment
120,000
32,364
37,000
25,313
$120 million
$ 32 million
161,068
4,370,657
643,006
292,961
100,000 $100 million $ 3,333,385 ♦
Dr. Paul Taylor has observed "that Westlands is to water what
Teapot Dome was to oil."
A study in 1966, it should be noted here, by a group of Fresno
State College sociologists found that small farmers in the
San Joaquin Valley paid higher wages to their workers than
those large corporate growers in the Westlands area.
The disparity, however, between the rich, subsidized farmer
and the underpaid, exploited farm worker is most apparent
in Kings County, California^ poorest county, with the
lowest average wages in the state. Kings lies in the very
heart of the Westlands district.
In I968 the county spent $24,000 on general relief, $2,711,388
on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and $667,800 on
Aid to the Disabled. At the same time some 247 of the
county's growers were receiving $10,279,927 in ASCS payments.
Over 50# of that amount was shared by four growers. The
Southern Pacific Co., whose retained income in 1968 was
$1.43 billion, also received $54,917 in crop subsidies for
land the company owns in Kings County.
Last February hungry and destitute farm workers In Kings
County appeared before the Board of Supervisors, and staged
marches, demonstrations and sleep-ins on the court house
lawn seeking more and better quality surplus food commodities
for their families and the institution of a food stamp pro-
gram for their poor. Meanwhile in Washington, D.C. It was
disclosed last month (March, 1970) that in 1969 some 63
growers from Kings County received $13,114,322 in ASCS
subsidies.
- 7 -
4761
Leading the list of county and national recipients, as he
has for the past three years, was J.G. Boswell II with
a $4,370,657 payment. In 1967 Boswell received $4,091,818
and in 1968 he collected $3,010,042. In addition to owning
32,364 acres in his own name Boswell also owns the Boston
Ranch (37,000 acres) which collected a 1969 ASCS payment
of $643,006 and controls the Crocket t-Gambody Ranch
(28,503 acres), Tulare Lake Land Co. (10,392 acres) and
through a lease 25,313 acres of Miller-Lux. He also farms
some 500 acres of struck table grapes in Arizona.
But Boswell' s financial acumen is not solely confined to
the fields of the Southwestern United States. In addition
to his $50 million a year business he serves on the board
of directors for the Security Pacific National Bank
(second largest in California, ninth largest in the nation
with deposits of over $5.8 billion) and Safeway Stores,
Inc., the nation's second largest supermarket chain.
Reviewing these facts it is not difficult to understand
why Boswell and his business associates have become for
thousands of rural poor in America the symbols of all
that is unjust in the social and economic life of our
country.
Ill
For nearly two years Safeway Stores, Inc. has been a target
of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO)
national table-grape boycott campaign. The union has
repeatedly asked the store to remove their table grapes
as part of UFWOC's efforts to win collective bargaining
rights with California and Arizona table grape growers.
The store, claiming its neutrality in this dispute, has
refused to remove the grapes and the union has replied
that Safeway is not a neutral party but is in close alliance
with the growers.
As one examines the corporate structure of Safeway, the
union's charge is well- supported, for this supermarket chain,
which had a 1968 total sales record of $3.7 billion and a
$55.1 million profit, typifies agribusiness today.
- 8 -
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B --
4762
For example, the 19 men who sat on the Safeway Stores, Inc.
board of directors in 1969 also sat on the boards of
Southern Pacific Co., Caterpillar Tractor Co., Wells Fargo
Bank (2), Castle & Cooke, Inc., Security Pacific National
Bank (2), Times Mirror Co., Sante Fe Industries, Inc.,
Tejon Ranch Co. , Pacific Gas and Electric Co. , Bank of
California (2), Union Pacific Railroad Co., Frank B. Hall
& Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. and Continental Can Co. among others.
Gene Cervl of Cervl's Rocky Mountain Journal commented on
another aspect of the Safeway operation in a July 17, 1968
article:
It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to sort out
Safeway' s hidden interest in feedlots, packing
plants, capttve feeders, cattlemen busted and hang-
ing on, and before long that's just exactly what
is going to happen to Safeway. It Just can't go
on forever wrecking the cattle production business
in this part of the United States.
Safeway Stores, Inc., however Is only one corporation in the
core of power that dominates agribusiness today. Through
Interconnecting directorates and ownership banks, conglom-
erates, processors, retailers, etc. the food Industry is
swallowing up American farming.
Another example. Six men Crowdus Baker, Edward W. Carter,
James Halt, Rudolph A. Peterson, Gardiner Symonds, and
Albert L. Williams between them serve on at least 29
directorates. These include: Sears, Roebuck & Co., Archer
Daniels Midland Co., Chemical New York Corp., Bethlehem
Steel Corp., Conlll Corp., Bank of America, Di Giorgio
Corp., Time, Inc., Kaiser Industries, Consolidated Foods
Corp., Southern Pacific Co., Tenneco, Inc., Kern County
Land Co. , Packaging Corp. of America, Newport News Ship-
building and Dry Dock Co. , Houston National Bank, Philadelphia
Life Insurance Co., IBM, First National City Bank, General
Foods Corp., General Motors Corp., American Telephone and
Telegraph, Broadway-Hale Stores, United California Bank,
Del Monte Corp., PG & E, FMC Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., and
Georgia Pacific Corp.
A 1968 Congressional study on Commercial Banks and Their
Trust Activities found that ^9 commercial banks now reach
into every major industry in the country through inter-
connecting directorates.
- 9 -
4763
Catagory Interlocks Plans Common Stock
Canning, Preserving
Fruits and Vegetables lb I2*
Grocery and Misc. Food
Stores
17 16 11
Meat Products 6 7 1
Dairy Products b 7 3
Grain Mill Products 6 12 5
Textile Mill Products 22 25 9
Lumber and Wood Products
(except furniture) 6 6 2
Agricultural Chemicals 3 13
Farm Machinery, Construction,
Mining, Material Handling 12 21
Groceries and Related
Products - Wholesale 5 3 2
In the 1966 report by the National Commission on Food Marketing
there appears an illustration tracing the flow of food from
sources to destination (page 6). It is significant in light
of the frequent claims that farmers are receiving less for
their crops while consumers are paying more for their food that
the two critical points in the flow are through the assemblers
and brokers and later through the wholesalers, brokers and
chain warehouses.
The importance of discovering Just how much control these
individuals and the corporations they represent exercise was
vividly illustrated by E. Drummond Ayres, Jr. in a March 12,
1970 article in The New York Times on Idaho growers burning
their potatoes in an effort to get better and fairer prices.
Buyers and processors throughout the country say
they have nothing against farm organization in
principle, but a random survey found that most
studiously avoid signing contracts with N.F.O.
members .
In fact, many bragged that they had been able to
undercut the organization by quietly persuading
some hard-pressed members to sell potatoes at
prices well below what the N.F.O. considers fair.
An Idaho Falls buyer, who asked not to be identi-
fied, said:
"We're going to do everything we can to avoid ever
signing N.F.O. contracts. We know where that would
lead to another union, In effect, and we've
already got enough of them to deal with."
- 10 -
4764
It is clear, therefore, that much new research needs to be
done In a positive effort to identify the various individ-
uals and corporations who are turning the nation's food
Industry into an exclusive club and transforming a country
of family farms into a land of nothing but factories in
the field.
The task of pinpointing this corporate power is to be the
major task of the study discussed in the introduction to
this paper.
IV
What direct affect are these current trends in agribusiness
having on rural America?
Victor K. Bay in an excellent booklet which should be re-
quired reading for anyone Interested in agribusiness.
THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE (published
by the National Farmers Union), has summed up some of the
already apparent affects:
1) Consumers are being put at the mercy of a de-
personalized monopoly.
2) A further concentration of political power is
being created that is causing other problems in
the society.
3) Our natural resources of land and water are
moving into hands that are abusing them and will
ultimately destroy them.
4) A social and economic reservoir that can never
be replaced is being destroyed as our rural
communities are being erased.
To understand what affect corporate farming is having on
agricultural labor let us look at three examples of how large
corporations treat their workers Bank of America, H.J.
Heinz & Co. and Gates Rubber Co.
At the apex of the agribusiness superstructure in California
is the Bank of America, which finances over 50% of the
state's agriculture. In a November, 1968 speech to the
California Canners and Growers, Mr. Peterson, then presi-
dent of the bank, outlined what he termed Ha new national
agricultural policy."
- 11 -
4765
Why is a banker talking about agricultural
policy? he asked. Because Bank of America has a
deep stake with lines of credit for agricultural
production running at about a billion dollars a
year. Our total agricultural commitment is pro-
bably around $3 billion. We've been in agriculture
a long time and we intend to stay in agriculture
for a lot longer. In a very real sense then,
agriculture is our business.
How the bank manages its agricultural loans, the property it
owns, and the workers who harvest the crops on that land
came to light several months ago after the UFWOC charged
that a 5000-acre bank-controlled ranch in the strikebound
Delano area was refusing to bargain collectively with Its
500 employees.
Bank officials contended that their ownership was only
temporary and in fact the land was leased to a firm called
Agri-Business Investments Inc. The articles of incorporation
for the leasing firm, however, showed as two of its officers
attorneys employed by the bank. The assets of Agri-Business
Investments, Inc. consisted of a lease of approximately
4000 acres from Bank of America for one dollar. Issued
corporate stock consisted of 250 shares at $10 per share.
In 1968 AgrlBusiness received $9000 in ASCS payments.
The land's former owner, P.J. Divizich, who after being
allowed to run up a $7.8 million loan debt and forced into
bankruptcy, had to sell the ranch to Bank of America for
$5.8 million. The bank also* obtained a certificate of
indebtness and lean on all his crops (mostly table grapes)
which means that he will probably be paying off the money
he owes the bank for the rest of his life.
This land is presently being sold by Agri-Business Invest-
ments, Inc. to other large land owners in the area.
Larry Itliong, assistant director of the UFWOC, has said
that his union had signed up most of the ranch's 500 workers
and had asked the bank to negotiate with them, but their
request was promptly rejected. In response bank officials
noted that although they were a major agricultural
financier, they were not themselves engaged in farming.
- 12 -
4766
Another example of agribusiness exercising its corporate
power to the detriment of farm workers came to public
attention last spring in Iowa when people were asked to
boycott the products of the H.J. Heinz Co. in an effort
to aid state migrant legislation. Two bills had been in-
troduced in the state legislature concerning child labor
law and establishing minimum health and housing standards.
The boycott idea was thought up by Democratic State
Representative John Tapscott after a group of Muscatine,
Iowa growers appeared before his committee holding hearings
on the child labor bill and admitted that they had been
mapping opposition to the bill at a meeting with Heinz
company representatives.
Tapscott said that Heinz was refusing to pay vegetable
growers adequate prices for their crops. This in turn
forced growers to pay migrant workers inadequate wages
and house them in substandard facilities. In fiscal 1969
the H.J. Heinz Co. net income was up 21. 9% to $28.4
million with net sales of $790.1 million.
Meanwhile Iowa legislators (The Washington Post. April 6,
1969) heard how some migrant workers were housed in three
wooden shacks, a hog house, a corn crib, a chicken house
and a rusty trailer at one tomato farm. At another farm
vegetable pickers were living in "broken down buses"
with no heat.
Robert Cheshire, supervisor of inspectors for the Iowa
Bureau of Labor, showed the legislators colored slides of
migrant camps, many containing what he called "Heinz
houses." They were so named because the company had
originally provided them to local tomato growers. They
were 9 by 12 wooden buildings with a flat tarred roof,
one light bulb and no plumbing'.
Tapscott later explained that Heinz was opposing child
labor legislation because If the children were to be kept
out of the fields wages would have to be raised so that the
parents could sustain their families by themselves. The
proposed legislation required that growers and other em-
ployers of migrants be held responsible for making sure
the children they hired met the minimum age requirements
established in 1967, e.g., no migrant child under 10
could work in the field and no child under Ik could
work before or during school hours.
- 13 -
4767
Evidence was presented by Federal anti-poverty workers show-
ing that many children tinder Ik and some under eight were
being employed because their parents lied about the children s
ages so they could help gain income for the family.
The impersonalization of agribusiness can also be seen in the
manner in which it creates additional social burdens for
rural communities and then seeks tax dollars to alleviate
that condition.
A case in point is the Gates Rubber Company, a diversified
Denver, Colorado firm that makes V-belts and tires. J*
recent years the company has been buying up land ^Wyoming
and Colorado, developing a cattle ranch with 180,000 head
and a farm with 1*20,000 chickens, making it one of the
nation? s leading egg producers. Gates Rubber Co. also
raises sugar beets.
Victor Ray, commenting on the latter operation, points out:
Thanks to Gates Rubber Co., the people of Yuma#
County, Colorado, have a new problem to deal
with a migrant labor camp. Gates rolled in
colonies of house trailers, removed the bath-
rooms from them, set around communal toilets and
showers, and moved in the migrant workers. The
Federal Government is subsidizing the operation,
mercifully, by establishing an education program
for the children.
Probably the single most important development in agriculture
which has cleared the way for giant corporations to get into
farming on a large scale is mechanization. Aside from its
broad economic aspects mechanization has a direct affect on
not only the workers- in-the-flelds Jobs but on their
capacity to organize.
Isao Fujimoto, a University of California, Davis behavioral
scientist, has discussed this aspect of mechanization in a
fascinating paper, "Mechanization and Farm Labor: Inequities
and Social Consequences."
. . . Despite claims that mechanization is geared to
help the farm worker by relieving him of drudgery,
the' politics of agriculture show that a large im-
petus for mechanization came out of fear of the
workers rather than out of concern for him fears
that a malleable labor supply or a comparable cheap
foreign labor force would diminish, or that the
domestic labor force would unionize.
- Ik -
4768
Fujimoto cites the growth and development of the tomato
harvester as an example of this fear. J. Bernell Harlen,
who with a partner farms 1500 acres near the UC Davis
campus, was the man who first tested the tomato harvester
and his explanation to The National Geographic of its
development underscores Mr. Fujlmoto's point.
Many tomato growers figured they'd have to give
up farming. Canners made plans to move to Mexico.
But by I965, when the bracero ban went into effect,
most of the bugs had been worked out of the har-
vesting machine, and we had learned what cultivation
practices the new tomato plant required. The way we
saved the tomato business in California reminds me
of those cavalry rescues in Wild West movies.
Mr. Fujimoto continues,
. . . Alvin Bertrand in an article entitled "The
Social Processes of Mechanization of Southern
Agricultural Systems" cites similar social causes
for the advent of mechanization in the cotton
industry. Planters in the South Ignored agricultural
machinery for years. However, two social processes
set in motion the landed aristocracy's acceptance
of technological advancements. One was the unioni-
zation of agricultural workers and the other was
the strengthening of the landlords* position
through subsidies sponsored by the Agricultural
Adjustment Act ...
Technology definitely had not been neutral or value
free in its response to the general welfare of
everyone concerned with agriculture. Technological
advancements including agricultural research,
mechanical inventions and extension service, have
a management bias ...
Once again Mr. Fujlmoto's own institution, University of
California, Davis, provides a perfect example of the
"bias" he speaks of. The Wall Street Journal in 1968 in
an article "A Farm Subsidy You Don't Hear About," des-
cribed UC as "a taxpald clinic for a major industry."
No other large U.S. industry has its money-making re-
search done for it free on such a scale as does agri-
culture by land grant colleges like the University of
California.
- 15 -
4769
For example, in fiscal 1967 the University's Experiment
Station spent more than $25 million. Of this, over $17
million was from state funds and nearly $7 million came
from Federal funds. Less than $1.5 million came from
California's $16 billion agribusiness industry, the nation's
largest.
Taxpayers and farm workers, like students, have recently
been asking themselves why they should subsidize UC
Davis* 25-year study on the corrosion of fence wire, or
a project "facilitating the marketing of seed," or on
developing equipment for twining hops.
While engaging in this type of activity on the one hand the
university has also in the past used their studies to
depress domestic farm workers' wages and support grower
demands for braoeros.
Not only have these reports been biased toward the state's
agribusiness interests, but those parts of the report
which have tended to give another side of the labor market
story have been suppressed. The famous 1964 Eric Thor-
John Namer Giannini report which dealt with the continuing
need for braoeros was carefully edited and trimmed so as
to omit the fact that authoritative studies had shown that
domestic workers were available for farm work if they were
provided with decent wages and working conditions.
V
In testimony before the President's Commission on Civil
Disorders on November 2, 1967 then Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture John Baker perhaps best summarized the affect
that corporations are having on the personal lives of
America's rural poor.
Past developments and trends in rural America
particularly on our farms are directly
related to, and are some of the fundamental
causes of urban civil disorder. Those of us who
have been close to agriculture over the years
have seen the inexorable thrust of modern tech-
nology and organization literally overwhelm
millions of families white and Negro in
the countryside force them off the land and
into the towns and cities, where both white and
Negro add to the overcrowding that leads to
explosion.
- 16 -
4770
What Mr. Baker suggests but does not spell out is that in
recent years many of the same corporations which have con-
tributed to people's poverty in the fields are the same
forces which exploit and oppress them in their new and
often impoverished lives in the cities.
For example, in 1968 the House Government Operations committee
reported that grocery store chains in Washington, D.C.
and other cities sell second-rate food and often charge
higher prices in their ghetto stores. The committee first
got interested in the supermarket subject the previous
year when a group of Washington, D.C. housewives with the
support of the Democratic Central Committee made a survey
and accused Safeway Stores, Inc. of charging higher prices
in the ghetto. The housewives also asserted that Safeway
raised its prices in the ghetto on the first of the month,
the day after welfare checks are issued. Safeway denied the
charges .
For a very long time urban America has ignored the events
taking place in rural America. Today we are beginning to pay
the price for this neglect and if this trend toward more
land and more capital in Kf fewer hands continues we may
witness a political and social upheavel unequal to any in
our country's history.
James Madison's main conception, Victor Ray reminds us, was
that all citizens should be possessed of an interest, list-
ing property owners, creditors, land owners, manufacturers
and others as examples. Madison also voiced concern for
those without property. This latter class of people have no
Interest in the society until as Andrew Hacker has noted,
"they organize a party whose aim is to socialize private
property."
Bay adds,
The concentration of farms into corporate hands
creates more people without an "Interest" in
rural America. Thus the real revolutionaries
of our society may be the corporate defenders
who are pushing us inevitably closer to the day
when the propertyless will seek to develop an
interest in the society by socializing the
property.
- 17 -
4771
And while we ponder on this observation let us not forget
(keeping in mind many of the events which have taken place
in our cities and on or near our college campuses in
recent months) President John F. Kennedy's admonition
uttered on two separate occasions.
We live In times of great change, and it is our
duty, our responsibility to make that change,
that revolution peaceful and constructive for all.
Those who act boldly act from right as well as
from reason ... If peaceful revolution is
impossible then violent revolution is inevitable.
VI
The continuing corporate invasion of agriculture has now
begun to pose some serious international questions as
well.
In February it was announced that an investment company had
been formed,
... to increase food production and rural income
(in Latin America) by the profitable application
of investment capital, which will lead to a broad
base of local ownership. Investments will be made in
new and existing enterprises that produce, process,
transport, distribute or market agricultural products.
The Latin American Agribusiness Development Corp. (LAAD)
will have authorized capital of $15 million. The partici-
pating firms, who will work as equal partners, Include:
Adela Investment Co., Bank of America, Borden, Inc.,
Cargill, Inc., Caterpillar Tractor Co., C.P.C. International,
Inc., Deere and Co., Dow Chemical Co., Gerber Products Co.,
Monsanto Co., Balston Purina Co., and Standard Fruit and
Steamship Co. All these corporations have been active in
Latin American business and trade in recent years while
continuing to expand their operations In U.S. agriculture.
Fred S. Orth, vice president of Bank of America, has been
elected LAAD's interm president with Donald J. Kirchhoff ,
exeo/uujive vice president of Castle & Cooke, Inc. chairman
of the board, and Paul F. Cornelsen, president of Ralston
Purina International, vice president.
In embarking on this venture In Latin America one questions
if LAAD, Inc. will follow the advice of Edwin M. Martin,
chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the 22-
nation Organization for Economic Coopesation and Development?
- 18 -
4772
Martin, noting that lack of Jobs is the most severe problem
confronting the developing nations, recommended that
companies investing in those countries should forgo much
of their labor-saving machinery and take advantage of
cheap labor.
Will LAAD also benefit from the counsel of Rudolph A.
Peterson's 16-member committee which recently conducted
a study on American foreign aid for President Nixon?
The committee recommended that the U.S. set up an
International Development Bank to lend money to poor
countries, particularly for agriculture and education.
Included among the members of that committee were John E.
Countrymen, chairman of the board of Del Monte Corp., R.
Burt Gookin, president of H.J. Heinz Co., William A.
Hewitt, chairman of Deere and Co., David Rockefeller,
chairman of Chase Manhatten Bank, Earl L. Butz, board of
directors, Ralston Purina Co., and Walter A. Haas, Jr.,
board of directors, PG & E.
Will LAAD's president Orth implement the financial phil-
osophy of his former Bank of America boss, Rudolph
Peterson, in this new corporation's Latin American ventures?
Peterson believes in "venture banking," e.£.,
... the job of International banks if they
are to avail themselves of the profit potential
in the vast resources of the lesser developed
countries, must be to mar shall credit, know-
how and capital to create wealth that could
not be created by the lesser-developed nations
themselves.
As this international financial activity by many of America's
largest agribusiness corporations continues, Dr. Sidney E.
Rolfe recently asserted in a critique for the Foreign Policy
Association, national resistance throughout the world to
multinational companies is increasing rapidly.
The reason, he notes, is that integration of resources,
production and distribution on an international scale
weakens the control of national economies that has come
to be an accepted function of Bureaucratic elites. Dr.
Rolfe estimates that at the present time there are
approximately 160 companies in the multinational class,
half ofl them being American.
- 19 -
4773
For example, some 450 U.S. companies are now operating in
Australia, many being mineral firms. However, such firms
as Kern County Land Co., Dillingham Corp., W.R. Grace Co.,
Chase Manhatten Bank among others do business in Australia
in addition to the some 3000 American landholders.
One of these landholders is J.G. Boswell II. In 1968 while
he was receiving over $3 million in ASCS subsidies for not
f rowing cotton in Kings County, California he was receiving
500,000 from the Australian government to grow cotton in
that country. Australia has been trying to stimulate cotton
production by paying a bounty of $15 a bale.
These are some of the questions and realities any discussion
of agribusiness in the United States must Include when
talking about the future of the Industry.
VII
Federal farm planners have speculated privately, according
to The Wall Street Journal, that eventually the United
States will need only about 500,000 farms, compared with
today's three million and that future farms will be big,
factory-like operations. (At the present time 338,200
of the nation's farms 11# hire any full-time help.)
Farm workers, unless given the protection of federal laws
other workers have enjoyed for thetoast 35 years, mainly
the right to organize and bargain collectively, will very
likely remain, in the face of this economic centralization,
much as they are today second-class citizens, a study
in economic powerlessness.
Each seglment of the American business community and each in-
stitution in our society is going to have to ask some hard
questions about what their role will be in the future as
agribusiness continues to grow and assume a larger place in
our social, economic and political lives.
For the American farm worker the path should be quite clear.
They must have the protection of the Wagner Act if they are
to achieve dignity and economic power. From even the brief
resume of facts outlined in this paper it is clear to see
why Cesar Chavez, director of the UFW0C, has so rightfully
declared:
- 20 -
4774
The policy of the original Wagner Act and its ad-
ministration for the succeeding 12 years was to
promote unionism for the unskilled and semiskilled
workers in mass production Industry. Its aim was
to quiet widespread industrial unrest and to meet
the social and economic challenges of the Great
Depression.
Where would the large industrial unions of today
be if Congress had "protected" them from the
beginning, not with the Wagner Act, but with the
Taft-Hartley Act as it is today?
We too need our decent period of time to grow
strong under the life-giving sun of a public
policy which affirmatively favors the growth of
farm unionism. Only a strong union can deal
effectively and on equal footing with the giant
agribusiness corporations that run most of
agriculture.
about the author
A. V. Krebs Jr. is a free-lance journalist who for the
past seven years has been contributing articles on farm
labor, agribusiness, and the Delano, California grape
pickers strike to nearly every major U.S. religious
publication and many secular publications. From California
he now lives with his wife and two sons in Somervllle,
New Jersey.
4775
In Aid of the Mexican-Amebican : A Proposal to Aid Mexican-American
Farm Workers
(By Mark Erenburg, Department of Economics, Indiana University,
Bloomington, Ind.)
INTRODUCTION
Public policy decisions will focus ever more sharply on hired farm workers
in the immediate future. The continued rapid introduction of chemical and
mechanical cultivation techniques and mechanical harvesting devices in agricul-
ture certainly will pose employment problems, over and above the difficulties
presently being encountered, for those seasonal workers who earn their liveli-
hoods in the farm sector of the economy. The impact of the machine and other
labor-saving techniques can already be seen in the reduced employment oppor-
tunities in such crops as cherries, sugar beets, potatoes, lettuce, tomatoes, cucum-
bers, cotton, and others.
First among hired farm workers to feel the reduction in job opportunities is
the migratory laborer : The least skilled, most unstable, most easily distinguished
(and also discriminated against) member of the farm labor force. The migrant
is the marginal worker, taking the residual jobs in many cases after the in-
digenous farm labor force is employed, or in other cases taking the jobs that no
"white American" worker would want.
As labor-saving devices and techniques become more fully operative on the
farm, the migrant worker is going to be forced out of farm employment. The
cream of the farm labor force will be pushed into the migrants' less desirable
jobs. With continued technological innovation, the unskilled migrant workers
will become more and more unemployed. In fact, some will become unemployable,
with no marketable skills whatsoever unless steps — government action — can be
taken now.
The group most likely to become unemployable appears to be the Mexican-
American migratory farm workers. These workers possess no skills, but worse,
they face many barriers to acquiring any employment at all. Many speak little
or no English, possess little or no education, have large extended families
dependent upon a few primary wage-earners, maintain different values and
mores than "American" workers, precluding widespread acceptance of govern-
ment aid, and retain a fear of the "Anglo" (American) and his way of life — a
fear of exploitation compounded with every trip around the migrant circuit.
It is the affirmed goal of the national government to eliminate the pockets of
poverty in this country as well as to reduce the number of unemployed. By all
standards, the Mexican-American migratory worker now is, and certainly will be
more impoverished and more without work than almost any subgroup in the
society. Congress has acted to reserve the decreasing number of farm jobs
for domestic agricultural labor by failing to renew the "Bracero Law" in 1965
which permitted the entry of short-term foreign labor into the United States
although foreign labor seeking farm employment are crossing the United States
borders in increasing numbers under other auspices. More governmental concern
is called for.
Several positive courses of action are open : Migrants may be aided by special
welfare payments designed to keep them and their families at some stated level
of well-being. Programs of accelerated education may be introduced to help the
migrant youth become better equipped to make his way in the world when he
matures. Literacy training may be offered for interested adults. Federal programs
such as the Job Corps may be better adjusted to accommodate the migrant.
Retraining and relocation programs may be instituted to offer a way to meet
changing conditions for the migrants of today.
Education is certainly necessary for future generations of Mexican-Americans,
welfare may be necessary in special cases, work programs may help those just
on the threshhold of the labor market, but retraining and relocation can help
many migrants meet today's problems without an underlying stigma of failure
and dependence.
Obviously, public policy is already oriented toward retraining and relocation,
given the Manpower Development and Training Act and the Economic Oppor-
tunity Act provisions. But, a decision as to whether the special problems of the
4776
Mexican-American worker preclude his participation in manpower-oriented |
operations is coming to the fore. Given the "lack of initiative" and fear of the |
migrant, inaction may produce a hard core of unemployable citizens as agricul- j
tural technology continues to develop. If even some of this graphic minority can
be retrained and relocated, improving their lot, poverty and unemployment can
be reduced in this marginal group.
The following program proposals are based on an extensive study of one group !
of migratory farm workers, the Texas-Mexican migrants (American citizens j
of Mexican descent residing in Texas) who travel annually to Wisconsin to
harvest crops in work in agricultural-related industries, although it really would i
suit any Mexican-American group. The complete study is filed with the Manpower ;
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
THE PEOPLE AND THE PROBLEM AN OVERVIEW
General information about Texas-Mexican migratory workers comes from
several sources, none of which refers specifically to this group. The USDA has
issued several reports analyzing characteristics of the United States hired farm
working force, the characteristics of the population of hired farm worker house-
holds, the education and earnings of the hired farm working force, and the
characteristics of Spanish-American wage workers on U.S. farms. Often these
reports distinguish between migrant and nonmigrant work, between white and
nonwhite workers (Texas-Mexicans are classed as white), and between workers
residing in various sections of the country. Statistics referring to South-based,
white migrant hired farm workers, when available, closely approximate informa-
tion about Texas-Mexican migratory workers. All statistics, though, suffer from
large errors associated with the sampling techniques used.
The Texas-Mexican values derived from Mexican folk culture are predominant
today in south Texas. To the extent that Texas-Mexicans have moved from rural
farming areas to urban conters, the strength of the values has diminished. How-
ever, since a large number of Texas-Mexican migrants are still residents of rural
Texas, they are dominated by the concepts of La Rasa (roughly "the race" or "the
people"). Mechanisms exist which actively prevent assimilation into the "Anglo"
community ; common language and religion, color, familial responsibilities,
machismo (roughly "manliness"), and community pressures. Fatalism, lack of
determination and future orientation, a noncompetitive nature, and a fear and
distrust of organizations and nonfamily alliances are in direct conflict with the
major social values of American society.
Few migratory farm workers enjoy being migrants, but are constrained from
taking other jobs by their lack of skill and by cultural barriers. Few travel the
migrant circuit to see the country, to broaden their horizons or those of their
families. Migrancy is not an educational or recreational experience. It is an
economic necessity. Migrant farm workers move from job to job to stretch their
neriod of employment, or move to permit others in their families to find work.
Changing farm technology has reduced the number of farm jobs in the United
States to an all-time low and the reduction will continue in the future (agricul-
tural productivity is increasing at 5.5% per year. Between 1960 and 1980 farm
man-hour inputs are projected to decline by 48%). While the demand for farm
labor will decrease, the supply of farm workers, migrant and nonmigrant alike,
will not exhibit a similar decline. (Between 1960 and 1980, hired farm labor is
projected to decline only 30-35%.) Farm workers will have relatively fewer jobs,
and their real income will not rise as rapidly as the real income for workers in
the nonfarm sector of the economy where adjusted of labor supply and demand
has been and will be more efficient.
For Texas-Mexican migratory workers, the long run and short run barriers to
higher earnings within agriculture and to mobility and higher earnings in the non-
farm economy are formidable. Their skill level is significantly below the level
for the farm labor force generally, and certainly below that of the entire labor
force. So too with their educational level and their emphasis on academic achieve-
ment. They are predominantly rural residents, with brown skin and a language
handicap. They do not completely share the "Anglo" farm workers' competitive
nature, desire to plan ahead, or their relatively narrow view of familial responsi-
bility. They are less able to afford geographic and occupational mobility and less
inclined to contemplate it because of the vast difference between their mode of
4777
ife and that of urban nonfarni workers. Even if the functioning of the labor
larket were improved, barriers to occupational and geogarphic mobility lowered,
>bs created or programs for upgrading skills provided by government action,
tie cultural heritage of Texas-Mexican migrant workers would still inhibit them
rom obtainng the employment benefits which would likely accrue to "Anglo
irm workers in the same circumstances. It is with these cultural barriers in
lind that a program to move migrant workers out of agriculture into northern
rban environments with a concommitant upgrading of skills will be discussed.
THE PROGRAM
The research on which this proposal is based has indicated that the relocation of
'exas-Mexican migrants to northern industrial cities is economically efficient
the net gain to the individual is conservatively in the neighborhood of &18.UUU
iver his lifetime depending on the assumptions made, and even more to society as
whole), and sociallv desirable (proverty is reduced by providing higher in-
comes for these workers without reducing the income of others.) It has also been
-ossible to pinpoint those among the population of Texas-Mexican migrant
workers who would be the most also potentially mobile (i.e., would be most likely
io relocate). The research has also provided an idea of the types of incentives
liecessary to induce relocation and to maintain relocated workers in their new
obs. What remains is to formulate a government-private enterprise-worker ori-
nted farm work within which to provide these incentives most effectively.
yhe primary incentives
Research on changing attitudes toward relocation and relocation incentives
an guide formation of tools for a program to encourage and stabilize relocation
»f Texas-Mexican migrant farm workers. To accentuate both perceived and
■ealized advantages of relocation, guaranteed steady employment opportunities
it higher than current (farm) wages for all family members desiring them must
>e offered to the most potentially mobile workers. The offers must be made
hrough credible channels, probably dissemination by indigenous recruiters
vould be best. Both the guarantees and the channels through which they come
vill also serve to allav personal fears and insecurities prior to relocation;
actual experience allaving these fears after the move. Arrangement for housing
n Mexican- American neighborhoods in the new locale with special emphasis on
opportunities for the education of children and adults must be offered to
limini«h the disadvantages of relocation which are likely to be realized. This
>ffer will help to stabilize workers after relocation. Moving and adjustment
illowances are unnecessary.
Incentives may be offered prior to relocation, but follow-up efforts must be
•nade after relocation to maintain worker stability. Indigenous counsellors in
he new locale can be used to introduce relocatees into their new neighborhood,
icquaint them with and facilitate use of the specially directed child and adult
educational opportunities, and to generally acquaint them with the socioeco-
nomic aspects of the dominant culture in the midst of which they must operate.
Indigenous personnel must also discover and develop the jobs to which later
guarantees bv the government in conjunction with private employers can be
lapplied They must take responsibility for the familiarization of relocatees with
these guaranteed opportunities both objectively as the terms of employment,
and realistically so that relocatees may grasp the. significance of the jobs in
their own culture terms. ...
Provision of these incentives to the most potentially mobile workers with
follow-up designed to allow relocatees to realize and evaluate them in their own
terms will most effectively encourage relocation and most effectively stabilize
workers in their new jobs. To be emphasized are two caveats. Not only must
(guarantees be made, but thev must be presented to potential relocatees in a man-
ner designed to facilitate their perception of the offers as guarantees in their
own culture terms. Second, relocatees must be helped to perceive program in-
centives as really overcoming realized relocation disadvantages. In other words,
•Relocation and retraining within Texas might be a more appealing alternative for
Texa f-Mexican migrants but "Anglo" community values toward Mexican-Americans and
■ the f weak f!StHaPl base in "his area make an interstate program a more realistic one.
36-513 O — 71— pt. 7B- 17
4778
no relocation program can succeed unless the workers perceive the incentives and ;
help offered as tools for accentuating advantages and overcoming disadvantages |
of relocation as they themselves perceive and realize these advantages and1
disadvantages.
More on steady employment
The most important realized advantage of relocation has been found to be!
employment security, and of possible relocation incentives, guarantees of steady '
employment are most frequently mentioned. A relocation program can makei
certain employment guarantees, but In the, final analysis, whether relocatees'
recognize and enjoy steady employment depends on their own behavior. Workers j
must consistently meet the requirements of their jobs if steady employment'
is to result. If workers cannot meet job requirements, the guarantee of job op- \
portunities does not guarantee steady employment. If relocatees do not enjoy;
steady employment, they may not remain relocatees. Employer comment on job j
performance can be used to evaluate relocatees' ability to meet job require- 1
ments ; their ability to keep their jobs. Employer comments also serve as a basis
for additional relocation program components to improve worker job performance, I
leading to improved ability to remain on the jobs provided, and to actually
experience steady employment.
The language barrier appears to be the most significant single factor causing j
relocatee employment problems, and the factor most likely to be at the root of j
poor performance, leading to a return to migrant farm work. High turnover rates, j
absenteeism, and lack of patience and initiative are likely results of an inability
to communicate combined with a lack of exposure to industrial discipline. To
some extent, however, poor performance is a function of the job itself. Higher |
wage firms, for example, report less problems with turnover and absenteeism j
than do the lower wage firms which dominate the returns.
A relocation program which guaranteed employment opportunities could absorb
the special costs of hiring relocatees and maintaining their jobs even in the face i
of decreases in production, but unless special efforts were made, absenteeism and |
high turnover would continue. Relocatees would not see the guarantee of em-
ployment opportunity as a guarantee of steady employment and would be sus-
ceptible to the attraction of their former way of life. A comprehensive relocation
program must provide the means for workers to take advantage of guaranteed
opportunities so that they actually do experience steady employment. From the
employer returns, it appears that adult basic education and orientation toward
the world of industrial work are necessary program components to allow re-
locatees to actually realize the advantages of steady employment which they
believe accompany relocation.
Another probable reason for the return of some relocatees to farm work and an-
other hurdle to be overcome by a relocation program is the general unavailability
of suitable housing. It may be surmised that "successful" relocatees not only over-
came language and industrial experience barriers to successful relocation, but also
found suitable housing. Suitable, that is, with respect to size and cost considera-
tion as well as locale. The housing problem would not and did not occupy a
significant place among relocation disadvantages listed by "successful" relocatees
because these workers either did not face, or overcame them. In-depth open-
ended interviews with a number of employers and community leaders, however,
have revealed that procuring housing at a realistic cost for relatively large fami-
lies in areas where other Mexican-American families reside and within reason-
able commuting distance to the job site account partially for "unsuccessful"
relocatees, relatively high job turnover, absenteeism, and subsequent return to
migratory farm work. In a relocation program, it may be necessary to overcome
this hurdle with rent subsidies or investment incentives to encourage private
enterprise to meet the low cost, specifically located housing needs of workers who
are encouraged to relocate.
Retraining
Up to this point, no mention has been made of worker retraining after reloca-
tion. The Wisconsin study on which this proposal is based was carried out between
1963 and 1966 when economic conditions in Wisconsin and in the Nation where
improving rapidly ; and in fact, at a time when the demand for unskilled labor
in the industrial centers of Wisconsin was relatively high. Migrant workers could
4779
move to Wisconsin and take jobs commensurate with their skill levels — unskilled
jobs. This may not always be the case. If relocation is to be a successful tool for
improving the employment and income position of Texas-Mexicans, it must be
accompanied by retraining so that fluctuations in the business cycle do not always
result in unemployment for these marginal workers or result in increased costs
incurred to keep these marginal workers in guaranteed jobs. From another point
of view, relocation must not mean relocation to dead-end jobs where workers can-
not improve their socioeconomic position and which will be most susceptible to
the impact of future technological change. A visible ladder for occupational
advancement must accompany relocation if it is to be a successful long run tool
for improving the labor market positions of migrant workers.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
How should the incentives of a relocation and retraining program be imple-
mented? What form of organization should such a program take? Are there any
institutions now in existence which might provide a basis for program implemen-
tation ? These questions will be treated below.
t Because of its interstate character, the program must be coordinated by the
[Federal government. Because it seeks to aid people with values and ideas at
variance with those dominant in the society, it must be administered by a group
of people from the sub-culture which it serves. Because free worker and employer
choice are important components of our economy, it must include voluntary
private employer (and worker) participation.
Private employers must supply the jobs both for reasons of social conscience
and enlightened self-interest. Exceptional costs of hiring Texas-Mexicans (those
above the "normal costs" experienced by these firms) must be defrayed by the
government. Private employers, however, are not social service agencies. Literacy
training, world of work orientation, and basic vocational and technical education
must be supplied at government expense outside the workplace. If time taken
from the job for these educational aspects of a relocation program work economic
hardships on employers, they must be compensated by the government. If
employers are large enough to undertake formal on-the-job training programs
for relocatees who have passed an initial adjustment period, they should be
encouraged to do so. If their mode of training is usually informal, again they
should be compensated for the extraordinary costs of informal OJT of relocatees.
If the private employers are not accustomed to or are of an inefficient size for
OJT, institutional training programs through the existing vocational and tech-
nical education facilities should be tailored to the special cultural needs of
Texas-Mexican relocatees.
Recruiting of relocatees, the development of employer cooperation, and the
follow-up of relocated families should be planned and directed by Texas-
Mexicans. Their role has several aspects: Recruitment should take place in
Texas and within the migrant stream. Last minute recruitment when workers
arrive in a northern state is inefficient. Trust and rapport should be buiLt up over
a long period of time. Information about new opportunities should not come
from strangers. Because of Texas-Mexican emphasis on family and community,
recruitment should be community directed. This cannot be better done than
through sources within existing communities. Job development should be under-
taken by people who understand the problems of Texas-Mexican employment in
industrial environments, not by "Anglo" administrators — even though they may
be more efficient at lining up jobs. Industrial employment for migrant workers
involves myriad human problems not directly connected with actual experience
on the job. Job development and development of supportive social services should
be undertaken by one group of people, familiar with the whole spectrum of
Texas-Mexican life. This includes development of suitable housing, although
government incentives to put developers may be needed.
The stabilization of migrants once relocated involves an appeal to culture
values which support family and community importance. Relocatees should not
be treated as individuals but as a group or community. Follow-up services and
activities should emminate from this group and involve the group. "Outsiders"
treating individual workers and families cannot hope to achieve the same results
as a community organization approach to building stability.
4780
The government should supply funds and use of existing institutions where
applicable, private employers should be encouraged to supply jobs and training
where practical through government subsidy and appeals to enlighten self-
interest, but the bulk of the effort and specific planning should be done by an
organization of Texas-Mexicans. A community organization should be developed
in the areas of Texas from which these workers come. A community organization
in areas to which these workers relocate should be developed. The two com-
munities should be linked by organization within the migrant stream itself. If
the cultural-social pathway from farm work to industrial employment can be
made as smooth as possible, the "Anglo" incentives of higher pay and chance
for advancement will have the desired effect on Texas-Mexicans : A movement
from farm underemployment to industrial employment will not only appear a
realistic alternative, it will appear to be a desirable one.
There are a number of social and political organizations developing within
Texas-Mexican communities in Texas and in northern cities which might form the
basis for this retraining and relocation program. Farm labor unions, for example,
could easily become the hub of community organization aimed at relocation and
retraining. There are a number of ongoing institutions which are not suitable
bases for the program. The Employment Service does not have and cannot de-
velop a Texas-Mexican orientation. The OEO relocation programs in some north-
ern states (U.M.O.S. — United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc., in Wisconsin)
are having difficulty with recruitment and follow-up of relocatees. The reasons
are many but include lack of contact with workers prior to arrival in the north-
ern states (U.M.O.S.— United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc., in Wisconsin)
cated workers, bureaucratic red tape and inefficiency in providing jobs and re-
muneration promised upon recruitment, and the imposition of typically "Anglo"
values upon the Texas-Mexicans working within the programs. This is not to say
that neither the Employment Service nor ongoing OEO programs cannot be in-
cluded in an overall program of relocation and retraining of Texas-Mexicans, only
that they must be subordinate to a community organization which truly carries
the values and ideas of La Raza from rural Texas to the industrial centers of the
North.
CONCLUSION
The idea of a comprehensive relocation and retraining program for Texas-
Mexican migrant farm workers presented here is necessarily sketchy. Many con-
clusions are stated with little or no reference to the research from which they
have developed. This shortcoming is a function of the brevity of the proposal.
Solid research has been carried out. The investigator has spent more than four
years working with and studying the migrant workers of the Mid-Continent
stream both in Wisconsin (as farm workers and relocatees) and in Texas. Any
conclusion presented herein can be substantiated.
To summarize the overall program, it is one of community organization of
migrant workers in Texas, in the migrant stream, and in northern industrial cities
to provide a continuum over which these workers may move to obtain steady em-
ployment of a kind not as likely to disappear as the farm work in which they are
now engaged. It calls for the cooperation in the form of money and use of exist-
ing institutions from the government but leaves the final use of this aid in the
hands of an organization of relocatees and potential relocatees. It asks for pri-
vate employer cooperation not as social service agencies, but as a rational ex-
tension of practical business operations. Where business rationality would fail
to give support to the program, excessive costs are to be defrayed by the
government.
Mexican-Americans have employment and social problems within our economy
and society. Mexican-American migrant farm workers have the most serious
problems and Texas-Mexican migrant farm workers have the most serious prob-
lems of all. The proposed program is aimed at this hard core group, but is aimed
at the problems of life in the United States as the workers themselves see the
problems, not as "outside do-gooders" see them. The vehicles for change proposed
herein are the vehicles proposed by the workers themselves as interpreted by this
investigator. They are the means to the end of improved life styles which the work-
ers think will be effective. Our social consciences dictate that we seek improved
4781
life styles for this sub-group of our population, but our consciences also dictate
that the "target population" specify the means to that end. The means specified
herein are broadly within our own concept of what is possible, given our po-
litical, traditional* and social view of change. It is for us to sanction the means,
trusting the Mexican-Americans to "know themselves."
Senator Mondale. I order printed at this point in the record addi-
tional statements and other pertinent material presented to the
subcommittee.
(The material follows :)
4783
MEXICAN IMMIGRATION
AND AMERICAN LABOR DEMANDS
Julian Samora and Jorge Bustamante
University of Notre Dame
Paper presented at Center for Migration Studies
Brooklyn College, March 13-14, 1970
This study was produced through the U.S. -Mexico
Border Studies Project at tha University of Notre
Dame, under the direction of Julian Samora, spon-
sored by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The
opinions expressed in the report do not necessar-
ily represent the views of the Foundation.
4784
Mexican Immigration and American Labor Demands
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is an attempt to show the relation-
ship between immigration to the United States and the demand for labor
within the United States.
The first part of the paper will attempt to give a brief his-
torical review of immigration into the United States up until the
turn of the century. The rest of the paper will concentrate on legal
and illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States during the
period 1910 to the present.
Mexico appears to be a special case in immigration history
because of its proximity to the United States, the common history of
the region, the long border which is almost impossible to patrol in
its entirety, the conquest of one nation by the other, the internation-
al relationships which have developed, the question of a developed
nation next to a developing nation, and the intertwining economy in
the border area.
Brief Historical Review
In this brief historical review we will be concerned primarily
with certain labor demands in the United States and how the labor has
been supplied to meet these demands.
Wittke (1949:8) tells us that as early as 1850 American laborers
resented the competition which was provided by immigrant labor. The
protest of the domestic laborers generally centered on the fact that
immigrant labor threatened the standard of living, the wage rates, and
the employment of domestic labor.
Reaction against Irish immigration for example occurred as early
4785
as the middle of the nineteenth century. By 1840 1,150,00 Irish had
Immigrated into the United States. This population was considered as
completely unassimilable to American society (Wittke, 1949:7). It
could be said that these immigrants from Ireland were the first to
receive the scrouge of discrimination from the dominant society, a
discrimination which was repeated on each successive ethnic group as
it has arrived in the United States. The usual stereotype of the im-
migrant has been that they are dirty, stupid, riotous, intemperate,
corrupt and immoral. Such terms were used to describe the Irish dur-
ing the decade 1840 to 1850 (Wittke, 1949:9).
This sterotype which was so easily used to describe the Irish
immigrant, was also used to describe other immigrants during the
second half of the nineteenth century. During this period millions
of Italians, Greeks, and other nationalities from Southern Europe,
fleeing internal turmoil, made their way into the United States.
These immigrants were discriminated against in employment and wages,
without regard to capabilities. (Eckler and Zlotnick, 1949:96) Yet
Joseph E. Hill (1911) asserted that immigration to the United States
has always been a response to the demand for "unskilled rather than
skilled manpower". (Eckler and Zlotnick, 1949:97).
We see then a paradox which characterizes the reaction of Americans
to immigration to the United States. On the one hand the doors have
been opened for unskilled labor which was to fill unskilled occupa-
tions at low wages (Eckler and Zlotnick, 1949:96) and this labor was
to meet, in the nineteenth century, the demand and necessity for labor
necessary for industrial expansion and development. On the other hand
we see the negative reaction expressed by prejudice and discrimination
by many, particularly those most threatened by the immigration.
4786
Toward the end of the nineteenth century a new source of
labor was sought, and the United States turned to China and Japan
for agricultural laborers primarily for the West Coast. This
source of labor was to replace the immigration from Southern Europe.
These latter immigrants, too, were received with the same negative
reaction as the earlier immigrants.
In 1882, on the recommendation of President Arthur, one of
the first immigration laws was formalized to establish restriction
on an open immigration policy. In this same year the Chinese Ex-
clusion Act was formalized. It limited the supply of cheap labor
from China. (Wittke, 1949:13). This legislative act brought new
restrictions to certain immigrants such as prohibitions against
Japanese to rent or acquire property (Wittke, 1949:13), and res-
trictions on the acquisition of United States citizenship. These
limitations then made agriculturalist look toward the Philippines
for laborers .
After the assassination of President McKinley new restric-
tions were suggested in order to prevent the entrance of anarchists
and professional beggars (Gordon, 1959:8).
The prejudice and discrimination directed earlier toward
Irish immigrants were transferred to immigrants from Southern
Europe, principally from Italy, as well as to later immigrants.
This prejudice and discrimination were related to the economic
crises which occurred during the first decade of the twentieth
century (Gordon, 1959:8). As a result of the report of the
Dillingham Commission (1911) a new, and important immigration
restriction was implemented, namely, the literacy test. This was
the epoch of the reign of the white supremacy which was espoused
4787
by poets such as Thomas Bailey Aldrich, Lothrop Stoddard and Madison
Grant who launched an attack to what they called "invasion of barbar-
ians", who threatened the social tranquility with "unknown gods and
rites" and who constituted a danger which threatened "the purity of
our air" (Wittke, 1949:14).
The Asiatic immigration was contained by the policy of the lAsia-
tic barred zone", and the European immigration was contained by the
policy of quotas in 1921. (Bremer 1949:142-143; Gordon, 1959:9).
The first law of quotas appeared in 1921 establishing a new cri-
teria which limited immigration according to "quality and in quantity".
It was determined that a maximum of 357,000 persons would be received
as immigrants into the United States (Wittke, 1949:17). This number
was reduced to 162,000 by the new law of quotas in 1924. Although the
quotas favored northern European countries, the quota law established
exceptions, the most important being the lack of quotas for Western
Hemisphere countries.
According to Eckler and Zlotnick (1949:92-101), the history of
immigration to the United States has been a history of accommodating
cheap foreign labor. The demand for cheap labor has been provided
by a variety of ethnic and national groups. On the one hand these
immigrants have been received with open arms, on the other hand
they have been perceived as threats to the society and on them has
been heaped the scrouge of prejudice and discrimination.
As the sources of labor from Europe and Asia have depleted or
been restricted, it is very clear that Mexico has become the main
source of cheap labor, notwithstanding the later immigrations from
Puerto Rico, which over the past fifteen years has supplied both rural
and urban laborers.
4788
Mexican Immigration
A Border Without Boundaries
In all of the massive immigrations which have occurred and to
which we have referred in the previous section, we encounter a common
denominator and that is the confrontation of the immigrant with a
new socio-environment, the immigrant encountered attitudes, behavior,
and symbols which constantly reminded him of his new status as a
newcomer. The language, the customs, the opportunities, all served
to remind hira of his status as an alien.
In most of the immigrations we also find a dramatic and sometimes
almost complete termination of further immigration into the country,
at a certain point in history. We find, too, that many immigrants
came to this country either seeking opportunity, or fleeing oppres-
sion and tyranny, and almost certainly wanting to become "Americans".
We find also that the distance between the United States and the source
of immigration has generally been great and in most cases separated
by an ocean.
In the Mexican case we find in the first place that they were
a conquered people, not unlike the indigenous Indians. We find no
particular assimilative resolution, that is, a desire to be "American".
In the early years along the border for many it was never quite clear
whether they were in their country or in someone else's country. Many
friends and relatives were easily accessible and still are, on either
side of the border. The proximity of the one nation with regard to
the host society is such that their close territorial contact extends
for over 1800 miles. Restrictive quotas have never applied to immigra-
tion from the Western Hemisphere as they have for immigrants from the
4789
Eastern Hemisphere. As to the cultural differences, to be sure the
Mexican immigrant does enter into a new and different culture and
social structure but at the same time there are enough vestiges of
his own culture in the form of food, language, religion, and forms
of settlement, that an immigrant whether he opts for the rural area
or the urban area can find in most instances cultural enclaves into
which he can settle easily without cultural shock.
Although there was continual movement back and forth in that
territory which the United States took from Mexico, there were few
recorded instances of immigration into the United States from Mexico
until the turn of the century. Gamio (1930:2), places the Spanish-
Speaking population at the turn of the century in the United States
at 221,915. Part of this population was obviously immigrants, but
perhaps a larger part of this population consisted of those people
and their descendents who were conquered in the Mexican-American
War. Saunders (1950:2) estimates this population numbered 100,000
in 1850.
The development of the frontier, the expansion of agriculture,
the building of the railroads, the beginnings of industry and commerce,
brought with it a demand for labor, at a time when the source of labor
had been practically cut off from both Europe and Asia through restric-
tions. The effects of these restrictions particularly as they were
directed toward Asia shows a decreasing immigration as can be seen
in Table I. The placement of quotas for other immigration, which
did not apply to Mexico, made Mexico, then, the great supplier of
labor for the development of the Southwest. Table I, again shows
in broad perspective the explosive increase of immigration from Mexico
from 1880 to 1920.
4790
a r^ t-t
u
o <u
o tu
r-*.
e
<M
0
*
ON
u
f-«
13
a
<U
4)
<t
oo
in
CO
O
•
•
(4
cO
o u
vn
<n
oo
4)
-Q
CT» 4)
r-t
to
0
00 P*
a
G
.-•
o
«
1
o
&
J8
03
a
S3 U
v©
«*
i^
u
4)
t-l <u
vD
m
i-i
>
jy
t>*
si-
«o
>»
i
JO
i/">
C*
o
•z.
vO
T3
4)
l/">
q
•o
4J
<a
<M
o
41
e
o
JS
14
o
o
o
9
c9
.Q
e
4)
e
4)
JJ
CO
O
O
4791
1910 marks the beginning of the Mexican Revolution. Among its
several consequences was the unemployment of people in Mexico as the
fields were turned into battle grounds. The individual Mexican who
did not partake in the revolution had little choice but to leave his
land in search of employment. This migration of peasants was directed
to either Mexico City or to the Mexican border. (Galarza, 1964:28).
Thus the economic developnent of the Southwest, the lack of
immigration quotas for Mexico, the Mexican Revolution, the easy
access to the border, and the demand for cheap labor, all are related
to the tremendous increase in Mexican immigration to the United States
during this period.
The Mexican Revolution and The First World War
It did not take long for employers in the United States, with
a concern for mining, agriculture, industry, railroads, or business
and commercial enterprises, to see the advantages of employing cheap
labor from Mexico, since cheap labor from other sources was essentially
unavailable, and Mexico seemed to have an inexhaustible supply.
The Corpus Christi Herald for example in 1910 advertized and
invited investment in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, offering as its
principle attraction of the region "the cheapest Mexican labor that
you can find'.'. (Taylor, 1934:105). Parenthetically, we find the
same type of propaganda being offered by the Chambers of Commerce of
American border cities and their development commissions as late as
1969. This is the twin-city concept but it has the same meaning
namely, cheap labor is available for American industry. Tucson
blatantly advertised the availability of labor at 30c an hour across
the border.
4792
As a result of the efforts to obtain cheap labor early in the
century, we find also a reaction of domestic laborers who feel affected
by such unfair competition. This situation, accompanied by lower
wages and high unemployment rates of domestic employees in the border
area, has as a consequence the displacement of domestic employees,
among them, Mexican-Americans. This situation plagues us even today.
Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, illustra-
tes the problem in this way:
When confronted by demands of high wages,
shorter hours and better conditions in New Mex-
cio, the mine operators called across the border
line and Mexican miners came to take the places
of the Americans. (Gompers, 1916:633).
Since the owners of the mines of New Mexico and Colorado also
owned the mines of Mexico, the experience and ability of Mexican
miners was well-known in the United States. (Gompers, 1916:634).
The significance of bringing Mexican workers has had the
stigma that this labor has been brought to the United States to
act as strikebreakers, to hamper the union movement, and to lower
the wages and the working conditions of the American laborer. We
quote Samuel Gompers again to illustrate this point:
Distance was no barrier to the coal and gold
mine operators of Colorado who wished to use
unsuspecting Mexican miners in order to main-
tain their domination over the lives of the
miners of Colorado . . . conditions had
stultified Mexican laborers. They were not
fully conscious of the wrongs done to them-
selves or the injury that they did to
American workers by undermining existing
standards and conditions. (Gompers, 1916:634).
One factor that seemed to be always in favor of the Mexican
worker when he came to the United States seemed to be the better-
ment to him which such work signified. Betterment in the sense that
4793
to obtain work in the United States as compared with the situation in
Mexico, particularly in the case of the miners, usually meant higher
wages. It was not by coincidence that the Revolution of 1910 began
with strikes by miners from Cananea, Sonora and the workers of Rio
Blanco, Veracruz, this indicated a situation which Gompers described
as "It was a revolt of a united people who had been despoiled of their
political rights as well as their property and opportunities." (Gompers,
1916:634).
The number of Mexican immigrants to the United States as of 1924
is estimated by Gamio (1930:2) at 890,746. Although Gamio himself
questions the reliability of this figure, we should state that this
figure referred to immigrants who were admitted legally. No one
knows how many Mexican immigrants entered illegally into the United
States at the beginning and during the massive population movement
which took place between the first and second decade of this century.
But we can estimate that the illegal number was greater than the legal
if we take into account the following factors which favored illegal
immigration. These factors were observed by Gamio in his investigaions
made in 1926:
1. The difficulties presented by the American immigration
laws to illiterates who could not pass the literacy test.
2. The loss of time and money which was caused by waiting
on the Mexican side while the legal requisites were taken
care of before admission to the United States.
3. The amount of money paid to a smuggler or "pasador" in
order to get in to the United States was generally less
than the $18 which the immigrant visa cost. (Gamio, 1930:
10).
At the turn of the century the Mexican peasant was by defini-
tion illiterate. Not only was education beyond his reach, but educa-
tion was often prohibited to him (Bustamante, 1969:13). Thus his
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 18
4794
very ignorance kept him a peasant. Under this conditions his life was
conditioned by tradition, which he generally accepted with the upmost
of fatalism. This was a peasant who followed the route north, a route
which did not really take him away from the cultural influence that
he had known. McWilliams says "Migration from Mexico is deeply rooted
in the past. It follows trails which are among the most ancient of
the North American continent. Psychologically and culturally, Mexicans
have never immigrated to the Southwest: They have returned." (McWil-
liams, 1949:58).
On the one hand legal admission to the United States was terribly
complicated and quite often beyond the reach of the peasant; on the
other hand with the exception of five or six points of entry, there
was little vigilance on the border (Jones, 1965:13) which is 1,870
miles long. Thus it seems logical that for the most part Mexican
immigration to the United States would be illegal. (Jones, 1965:15).
The Border Patrol and The Wetback Era
The creation of the Border Patrol in 1924 (Jones, 1965:15) made
necessary a greater distinction between those who cross the border
legally and those who violated the immigration laws. The mission of
the Border Patrol was enforcement of these immigration laws which up
to this date are not well understood or either ignored by the immigrant
who, in the absence of an official 'who might sanction him upon his il-
legal entry doesn't really identify himself as a lawbreaker. The Bor-
der Patrol became this official who served as a reference point to the
illegal immigrant with regard to the legal consequences of the violation
of the immigration laws. Before the Border Patrol, the illegal immigrant
just had to stay out of trouble and not implicate himself with the police
or the judicial authorities in order to consider himself completely
4795
3
MZICM OvO
r-l
CN tAH C^ H
CCJ
co m o\ co -<r
4J
« «
* ** ^
c
o
r-i r-l f^ <T O
o
H
H(S\OH
•H
i-4 CM
XJ
CO
N
•i-l
r-f
CO
(0
U
<u
0
}^
xj
p
w
XJ
!3
V-i
CO
*o
a
CD
1 CO o
d
en co
co
O
( CM CO
d
CO
XJ
&
1 <N CO
o
•rl
Cl
c«
XJ
CO
4J
CO
>-(
c
^
00
0
00
• H
l-l
•l-l
B
o
0
§
M
r-l
r-i
o
xj
>
co
05
ctj
<u
OOP*
co
XJ
CO
XJ
f-l
o
c
CO
M t.
o
u
•H
p- CO
cm r»» vo
T3
U-(
o
XJ
cm m
t-i in co
CD
O
PQ
CO
m m
ON r-l O
XJ
XJ
•» »»
•» •» *
•H
CO
a
M
w* r-l
r*» cm r^
C
C JC
O
r-l
CNO\H
P
O
xj
a
r-«
• r-f
o
O
co
>n
p
.c
C rO
XJ
UJ
O
. CO
XJ
O.
C
U
<
O
o
•H
<f r^
a,
</)
i co m
CD
c
-3- <r
^
<u
I *\ *
JZ
co p*
r-l
0>
I CM «tf
CO
J-l
r-l r-4
D
a
d
•
o.
c
CD
<
O O
O r-t
O O O
CM CO <f
<
vO
vO
ON
r-l
o
>
V-l
CD
CO
•o
on on
ON ON ON
• •
0
r-4 r-»
r-t r-l r-l
C>
•H
1 1
1 1 1
o
Vi
CM r-4
r-l r-l r-l
M
a
ON O
r-l CM CO
D
P-
, CO ON
r-l rH
ON ON ON
r-l r-l -*
O
CO
4796
safe in the streets and roads and fairly free to choose the most con-
venient work. (Jones, 1965:16) Only the courts could decree his de-
portation. Generally speaking deportation came as a consequence not
so much of having entered illegally but rather having become involved
in some criminal offense.
The creation of the Border Patrol was accompanied by a new ad-
ministrative procedure which accelerated the expulsion of the illegal
immigrant, which before this time was made through deportation. This
new administrative procedure is called "voluntary departure". An il-
legal immigrant who has been apprehended is required to demonstrate
his legal status in the country. If he can not demonstrate this status
he is subject to deportation. If the illegal immigrant, however, wishes
to avoid being deported, he is invited to leave the country voluntarily.
If he refuses this invitation, theoretically he should be taken before
a judge in order to prove his legal entry. If he can not prove legal
entry he is then subject to deportation.
Table II, illustrates the effects on illegal immigration after
the creation of the Border Patrol and the administrative procedure of
voluntary departure.
The very apparent increase which appears in the decade 1921 to
1930, marks a very important change in the history of the Mexican il-
legal immigrant. From being one of many migratory workers and almost
certain that his illegal entry would not bring any sanction, his status
was changed, beginning in 1924, to that of the fugitive from the law
who had to be constantly hiding in order to not be apprehended and ex-
pelled from the country. He became known as the "wetback".
The establishment of the Border Patrol was accompanied by an
organized form of smugglers. These have been called by various names:
4797
"smuggler", "man-snatcher", "coyote", "enganchista", or "pasador".
The "smuggler" has usually been a Mexican (Galarza, 1956:60) and he
operates by keeping abreast of the demand for labor in the United
States, particularly agricultural labor along the border, and many
times he acts as an agent or labor contractor. If he acts as an agent
or contractor he is paid so much a head for each worker. He crosses
the border into Mexico, secures his workers and assures them that he
knows the best crossing sites. Sometimes this means that there will
be less vigilance at the sites or sometimes it means that he has made
an arrangement with the Border Patrol (Bustamante, 1969:42). None of
these promises on the part of the smuggler need necessarily be true
in order to get the necessary men to follow him. The price for his
services are paid in advance. In 1926 it was less than $18 (Gamio,
1930:10). Our own investigation in 1969 suggests that the price to
the smuggler varies between $200 to $300. Some of the workers do in
fact cross safely, that is without being apprehended, and find work
as promised by the smuggler. More often than not, however, the wetback'
is apprehended before he finds work.
There have been many tragedies with regard to the smuggling of
aliens, most of which are related to the methods of transportation.
The establishment of the Border Patrol in 1924 modified not
only the interaction between the illegal immigrant and the U.S. auth-
orities, but also modified the pattern of interaction between the il-
legal entrant and the employer. Before 1924 salaries and working con-
ditions were established according to the supply and demand of the labor
force. After the establishment of the Border Patrol a new factor came
into being, namely the danger of being apprehended and thus returned
to Mexico. Thus the threat of being turned in presented a new dimension
4798
to the disadvantage of the illegal entrant. Since anyone can turn
in an illegal, such a threat began to narrow down the social contacts
which the illegal might establish, with the exception that he must
always have some relationship to the employer. In our estimation the
implicit or explicit threat of being turned in, even by the employer,
brings a new element into the situation with regard to wages and work-
ing conditions. In a real sense the illegal is at the mercy of the
employer, the alternatives of accepting or not accepting a job are not
necessarily open to the illegal, because an employer can in fact insist
that the wages and working conditions be accepted by the illegal or
face the possibility of being turned in to the Border Patrol. How
common this is we don't really know but such instances have been re-
ported by Saunders and Leonard (1951:72), Hadley (1952:352), and Jones
(1965:14-20) . Seventeen out of 497 wetbacks interviewed by the authors
in 1969 complained of the employer having turned them in to the Border
Patrol without having paid their salaries. Fourteen were working in
Texas, two in California and one in Arizona. The following illustrates
a situation with regard to the relationships between the Border Patrol,
the interests of the employer in obtaining cheap labor, and the exploita-
tion of the wetback:
The wetback who finds agricultural employment
in the Valley frequently does not have an enviable
lot, even in terms of local standards* His hours
are long, his wages low . . . His work day may
vary in a length from eight to twelve hours. His
time is completely at the disposal of the employer.
His productivity hour for hour is probably less than
that for the citizen laborers, but he will work longer
*We must point out that the "local standards" with which Saunders and
Leonard are comparing the "non-enviable lot" of the wetback in that area,
were found to be the lowest in the United States with the sole exception
of the Indian Reservation's surrounding areas. (Select Commission on
the Western Hemisphere, 1968:113-130).
4799
and more steadily than the citizens. He is usually
afraid to protest against working conditions and will
accept fairly low wages without comment. He seldom
bargins for his services, but accepts the rates of-
fered by the employer. ... It is a common belief
among those familiar with working conditions in the
Valley that it is the wetbacks docility, even more
than the low wages he works for, that makes him so
attractive as a worker. At least it can be stated
with assurance that the illegal status of the wet-
back in the U.S. provides a powerful club that can
be brandished over his head at any time. And, it
is not difficult for an employer to see that a re-
calcitrant wetback is rapidly deported to Mexico.
(Saunders and Leonard, 1951:54-55).
The depression of the 30' s brought about a number of measures
which affected immigration from Mexico. Perhaps the more serious of
these was what has been called "operation deportation" realized in 1930.
Although no statistics were kept for this operation (Jones, 1965) the
general procedure was to require all those suspected of being aliens
to prove that they were born in the United States. The person who
could not satisfy this requirement was expelled by the country under
the administrative procedure of "voluntary departure". This was done
in order to reduce the number of unemployed during the Depression as
well as the large number of people who were on welfare. This procedure
also proved to be a hardship for many Mexicans who had in fact left
Mexico as many as twenty years before, as immigrants, and now they
found themselves expelled from the country.
The number of wetbacks continued to grow after the Depression
and with it also grew the discontent of Mexican-American workers in
the Southwest who felt that they were displaced by the wetbacks, part-
icularly in the border region, and that many of their problems such
as public health, illiteracy, education, unemployment, and poverty were
aggravated by the presence of the wetback.
4800
Many inhabitants of the urban areas along the border blamed the
wetback for all their problems without giving much thought to the at-
titude of the growers which was summarized eloquently by Vice-President
Garner "In order to make profit out of this (agri-business) you have
to have cheap labor". A similar attitude was expressed by Senator
McCarran who pleaded that we look at the situation realistically in
terms of the interests of the employer and his need for the wetback.
As the problem grew more serious it also began to get national
attention. The New York Times said:
It is remarkable how some of the same Senators
and Representatives who are all for enacting the
most rigid barriers against immigration from South-
ern Europe suffer from a sudden blindness when it
comes to protecting the Southern border of the U.S.
This peculiar weakness is most noticeable among
members from Texas and the Southwest, where the
wetbacks happen to be principally employed. (New
York Times, November 28, 1952. Cited in Scruggs,
1963:149).
Many Mexican-American organizations exerted pressure on the
U.S. Government to stem the flow of Mexican illegal immigrants, as
well as the bracero, and the commuter. The claim being that all of
these population movements had adverse effect on wages and working
conditions and standards of living for the domestic population.
Finally President Eisenhower asked Attorney General Brownell
who had visited the region to propose a plan. The plan turned out to
be that General Joseph May Swing* was named Commissioner of Immigra-
tion and Naturalization Service, in charge of the Operation Wetback
(The Immigration and Naturalization Reporter, 1954:1).
♦General Swing's service record includes his participation in the ex-
pedition that invaded Mexico in 1916.
14801
In July of 1954 General Swing presented his plan to a group
of employers in South Texas and said: "When President Eisenhower
appointed me for this job his orders were to clean up the border.
I intended to do just that." (McBride, 1963:5).
Operation Wetback was pursued with military efficiency and
the result was that over a million wetbacks were expelled from the
country in 1954.
At the end of 1956 some people considered that the problem of
the wetback was an episode of history. But as we move through the
years we find that while there was a great decrease in the number of
wetbacks from 1954 to 1959, we begin again to see an increase of il-
legal immigrants up to the present time. (See Table III).
One might in fact suggest that if agricultural production was
so dependent on wetbacks, then presumably Operation Wetback would
have brought about an economic castas trophe to the border region.
Other things happened and the economic castastrophe was not realized.
The process of legalizing wetbacks and converting them into braceros
(which we will discuss in the following section), was one thing.
Many of the wetbacks who were expelled as illegals came back as
braceros, legally, Operation Wetback may have dried out a pool of
cheap labor within the United States but it certainly augmented the
pool of cheap labor across the border in Mexico.
law. Power and Discrimination
The decade between the 1930' s and 1940' s was a period in which
it became obvious that the supply of labor, whether legal or illegal
(for the Southwest), was obviously based in Mexico. It was during
this period also that the prejudices and the discrimination towards
4802
TABLE III
Apprehensions, Deportations and Voluntary Departures Recorded by
The Immigration and Naturalization Service*
Period
Apprehensions
1,337,210
Deportations
1941-50
110,849
1941
11,294
4,407
1942
11,784
3,709
1943
11,175
4,207
1944
31,174
7,179
1945
69,164
11,270
1946
99,591
14,375
1947
193,657
18,663
1948
192,779
20,371
1949
288,253
20,040
1950
468,339
6,628
1951-60
3,584,229
129,887
1951
509,040
- 13,544
1952
528,815
20,181
1953
885,587
19,845
1954
1,089,583
26,951
1955
254,096
15,028
1956
87,696
7,297
1957
59,918
5,082
1958
53,474
7,142
1959
45,336
7,988
1960
70,684
6,829
1961
88,823
7,438
1962
92,758
7,637
1963
88,712
7,454
1964
86,597
8,746
1965
110,371
10,143
1966
138,520
9,168
1967
108,327
1968-69
151,680
Voluntary Departures
1,470,925
6,531
6,904
11,947
32,270
69,490
101,945
195,880
197,184
276,297
572,477
3,883,660
673,169
703,778
885,391
1,074,227
232,769
80,891
63,379
60,600
56,610
52,796
52,383
54,164
69,392
73,042
95,263
123,683
Total
1,581,774
10,938
10,603
16,154
39,449
80,760
116,320
214,543
217,555
296,337
579,105
4,013,547
686,703
723,959
905,236
1,101,228
247,797
88,188
68,461
67,742
64,598
59,625
59,821
61,801
76,846
81,788
105,406
132,851
108,327
151,680
Source:
1966 Annual Report of theU.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service:
92. (Figures of fiscal years 1967-1968) Report of Field Operations of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (Unpublished).
♦Figures in the column of totals include apprehensions made by other
authorities rather than the Eorder Patrol. Figures include the
totality of aliens either -voluntary departed or deported.
4803
this labor was in a sense institutionalized. This means that the
attitudes, the values, and the norms of behavior related to this pop-
ulation were formalized and continue to the present time. A deputy
sheriff appearing before the LaFollette Committee hearings, illustrates
the point:
We protect our farmers here in Kern County
. . . they are our best people . . . they keep
the county going . . . but the Mexicans are trash.
They have no standard for living. We herd them
like pigs. (McWilliams, 1949:191).
In tnis eloquent declaration we find a statement of the factors
which have been related to the interactive process between immigrant
Mexicans as they relate to the social structure which needs his labor.
Without elaboration these factors are: 1) The need to protect the
interests of the growers. 2) The value judgments which justify the
protection of these interests. 3) The power of the growers as they
are "protected". 4) The justification to treat Mexicans in whatever
manner is necessary. 5) The lack of power of the Mexican immigrant
before the social structure. 6) The prejudicial attitudes and the
discriminatory behavior directed toward the Mexicans.
Other writers quoted before (Saunders and Leonard, Hadley, and
Galarza) have noted the same prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory
behavior which in a word can be called the exploitation of cheap
labor.
Our point is that this exploitation was institutionalized dur-
ing this period although the historical basis preceded it. Note for
examp le :
Mr. Chairman, here is the whole problem in
the nutshell. Farning is not a profitable in-
dustry in this country, and, in order to make
4804
money out of this, you have to have cheap labor
... in order to allow land owners now to make
a profit on thier farms, they want to get the
cheapest labor they can find, and if they can
get the Mexican labor it enables them to make
a profit. That is the way it is along the bor-
der and I imagine that is the way it is any-
where else. (Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization Hearings, 1926:20-23).
The above quotation was taken from John Nance Garner, before
he became Vice-President of the United States, during the administra-
tion of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This statement from such a high offi-
cial in the U.S. Government suggests if not the power certainly the
influence of the growers.
Senator McCarran, many years later declared:
. . . Senator (Elender) , I think you will
agree with me that on this side of the border
there is a desire for these wetbacks . . .
Last year when we had the Appropriations
Bill up, the item that might have prevented
them from coming over to some extent, was
stricken from the bill ... we might just
as well face this thing realistically. The
agricultural people, the farmer along the
Mexican side of the border in California, in
Arizona, in Texas . . . want this help.
They want this farm labor. They just can
not get along without it. (Senate Committee
of the Judiciary of S. 1917 Hearings 1953:
123).
This again illustrates the institutionalization of the exploita-
tion of cheap labor with regard to Mexicans. There seems to be little
regard in these statements as to the morality or immorality of the
action and certainly not much regard as to the legality or illegality
of the action. Thus illegal immigration and the hiring of illegal
aliens seems to be taken for granted, ?.nd it comes as a given in the
economic situation along the border.
In the meantime it seems as if the growers viewed the situation
of the illegal immigrant as a question of supply and demand. Expres-
sed in these terms they presumably did not view the reduction of wages
4805
over time as anything bad. As a matter of fact in the study of the
Fabens community near El Paso in 1969, the growers still talk about
their provision of jobs to Mexicans who without these jobs, would
undoubtedly be starving in Mexico. Gamio found that in 1926 the aver-
age wage for the Mexican immigrant was $1.50 to $1.75 a day (8 hours)
in Texas (Gamio, 1930:39-41). Saunders and Leonard found in 1950
that the average wage of the wetback in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
$2.50 for a twe lve hour day. This then means that twenty-four years
later the grower of south Texas has not increased wages during this
period as the comparison of those figures indicates. On the other
hand if we look at the profits for agri-business in the same region
of the Lower Rio Grande Valley between 1920 and 1950 we find an in-
crease of 1,000%. (Saunders and Leonard, 1950:16-17).
In view of this situation it is no wonder that domestic workers
have raised questions about the lowering wages and the unemployment
and displacement of the domestics with the importation of illegal
workers. A fruit picker from Sonoma County, California, where work
in the fall of the year can be found in apples, prunes, grapes and
walnut picking, express typical bitterness over wetback competition
in a letter to government officials dated September, 1953. He com-
plained:
The Wetbacks are driving the American workers
out of the fields, the American workers don't
want to live on charity, they want to work under
decent conditions . . .
We are American taxpayers, we have worked
hard to pay for our small homes, we have also
been paying income taxes for years when we had
steady jobs, work has been falling off in
Sonoma County of late . . . and us taxpayers
need these fruit jobs badly, it is bad enough
to compete with Mexican National labor (Con-
tract Labor usually brought in) but we just
cannot compete with Wetbacks.
4806
We just cannot live under the same conditions
these Wetbacks live under, and we just cannot
work under these conditions these ranchers ex-
pect American people to work under. The Cham-
ber of Commerce advertises over the radio, also
in the newspapers, how short the ranchers are
on help to harvest their crops, there is no
shortage of fruit help, the reason is, the
ranchers want cheap labor, that will live and
work under any condtions . . . (Quoted by Hadley,
1954:345).
This letter is illustrative of the problem of the displacement
of domestic workers, generally local Spanish-Speaking persons or
Mexican-Americans. They speak frequently and bitterly about the low
wages that they are offered. They talk about the number of times
they are refused work because they are citizens, the necessity to
move northward during a part of the year because of their inability
to obtain work in places where the aliens have been hired at wages
on which they can not live, and the educational handicaps placed
on their children as a result of this migration, which, for many
starts before- school is out in the spring and ends long after it
has started in the fall (Scholes in Saraora, 1966:63-94).
One of the most tragic roles which the Mexican immigrant, part-
icularly the illegal has had to play is that of strikebreaker. This
has been true of those who have worked in agriculture in the border
area, in the mines of the Southwest, and in the industrial setting in
the Great Lake areas. The result of this has been an unfortunate
relationship between domestic workers and alien workers, as well as
a situation which has favored the employers by pitting groups of
workers, against each other, in many instances Mexican-Americans
against Mexicans, to the advantage of the employer. Thus a general
hostile situation has come to pass between Mexican-Americans and
4807
e
10
u
oo
o
u
(U
o
u
cy
o
n»
M
PQ
<u
X
00
c
u
3
P
CO
P
E
o
CO
o
Q.
E
<U
H
>
U-l
O
co
o
U
u
at
QJ
J3
o
E
CO
3
^
Z
PQ
^
CO
0)
JM
Un
O
w
o
H
M
(U
o
X
u
E
CO
3
>-«
Z
PQ
J-l
CO
ID
><
IM
O
CO
O
M
u
CD
<u
^>
o
s
W
3
u
Z PQ
v->
CO
<u
>*\
r~>
CO
vO
o
m
sr
ST
CM
00
vO
00
sr
CM
r*»
m
i-\
CO
co
t-i
on
sr
sr
ro
CM
CO
m
on
on
m
on
co m vo
r^ no co
on oo r^
o
vO
on
on
,— I CN
nO M3
ON ON
vO
00
CO
nO
ON
vO
ON
o
o
m
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
CO
CO
CO
o
o
m
vO
ON
ON
o
nO
CM
ON
t-t
ON
1-4
o
CM
ON
o
CO
co
ON
CO
m
st
sr
vO
co
sr
o
m
en
ON
CN
in
• ON
CO
m
ON
sr
m
ON
m
m
ON
no
m
ON
m
ON
ON
ON
vO
S
CO
00
o
sr
CO
CM
m
o
o
ON
r^
m
sf
CO
sr
o
CM
o
r-i
sr
O
NO
CO
o
■«
n
Wi
•i
«*
m
m
*
sr
CM
CM
ON
CM
ON
m
r>-
m
NO
sr
CO
f-4
CO
o
CM
sr
ON
CO
\ST
m
NO
r*
sr
sr
sr
sr
sr
ON
ON
c\
ON
o>
CO
ON
ON
sr
ON
NO
\0
NO
ON
CO
u
o
E
<o
tO
c
•H
10
0)
f-t
o
X
o
to
CM
m
vO
ON
CO
CD
C
o
w
o
u
3
O
CO
4808
Mexican aliens in which in reality the "bad guy" of the situation,
the employer, comes out unscathed.
The Bracero Program
The Bracero Program was created by an agreement between the
United States and Mexican governments in July 23, 1942. The ration-
al for the program was to overcome manpower shortages originated by
the involvesnetit of the United States in the World War II. Agricultural
productior was viewed as vital to winning the war. Thus, the lack
of agricultural labor was considered a concern of the War Food Ad-
ministration. This agency, in cooperation with the Department of
Labor and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established
a labor recruitment program as an emergency war measure (R.S.C. W.H.I. ,
1968:92), based upon the U.S. -Mexico agreement.
The main provisions of the U.S. -Mexico agreement for the Bracero
Program were:
Mexican workers were not to be used to dis-
place domestic workers but only fill proved short-
ages. Recruits were to be exempted from military
service, and discrimination against them was
not to be permitted. The round trip transporta-
tion expenses of the worker were guaranteed,
as well as living expenses on route. Hiring
was to be done on the basis of a written con-
tract between the worker and his employer and
the work was to be exclusively in agriculture.
Braceros were to be free to buy merchandize in
places of their own choice. Housing and sani-
tary conditions were to be adequate. Deductions
amounting to 10% of their earnings were auth-
orized for deposit in a savings fund payable
to the worker on his return to Mexico. Work
was guaranteed for three-quarters of the dura-
tion of the contract. Wages were to be equal
to those prevailing in the area of employment,
but in any case not less than 30 cents per hour
(Galarza, 1964:47-48).
These provisions as they related to adequate transportation,
housing, wages, food, medical care, and guaranteed length of work,
4809
were seldom provided and more often than not, the agreements were
violated by the U.S. subscribers. (Galarza, 1964; Scruggs, 1963:
251-254).
Several factors intervened in the constant violation of the
provisions of the agreement from the part of the farmers: 1) They
were able to hire Mexican workers as braceros, by-passing the centers
for recruitment run by the Mexican government, regardless of the pro-
visions of the agreement; this made it impossible for the Mexican
Government to control the guarantees established in protection of
the bracero (Galarza, 1964); 2) The overt cooperation of the Border
Patrol to admit workers as braceros regardless of Mexican government
consent, (Galarza, 1964); 3) The practice of the "drying out" of
wetbacks by the Border Patrol which consisted in taking large groups
of wetbacks to the border, after their apprehension for their illegal
entrance, making them place a tip of the toe on the Mexican side in
order to make lawful their admittance as braceros. (Galarza, 1964);
4) The powerlessness of the Mexican government to enforce the pro-
visions of the agreements over the American farmers and the indif-
ference of the U.S. Government about its violations, for example, the
"incident of October".*
World War II ended but not the emergency war-time measure
called the Bracero Program. By several extentions the war measure
lasted 22 years ending on December 31st of 1964. Table TV shows
the magnitude of the Bracero movement which totaled 4,646,199.
*In October of 1948, 6,000 Mexican workers marched on the Mexico-U.S.
bridge at El Paso, Texas admitted as braceros after being hired by
farmers of the area, in spite of the Mexican government's opposition
to let braceros go to Texas, as a protest for the discriminatory
practices against Mexicans in that state. This massive hiring was
considered as a cynic case of overt violation of the agreement and as
a deplorable indifference of U.S. authorities to prevent or sanction
the violation (Jones, 1965:21; Galarza, 1964).
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 19
4810
The Bracero history did not accomplish one of the goals as con-
ceived by the Mexican government, namely eliminating discrimination
and exploitation of the Mexican worker.
The Commuter
It is necessary to distinguish between the official definition
of commuter and the commuter phenomena. The former has been ex-
pressed in the following terms: "The aliens referred to as "commuters"
are those aliens who have been lawfully accorded the privilege of
residing premanently in the United States but who chooses to reside
in foreign contiguous territory and commute to their place of employ-
ment in the United States" (R.S.C.W.H.I. , 1968:101). In the legal
sense, commuter is the one who bears a form 1-151 known as "green
card", issued to a person upon the rationale of the official defini-
tion.
The commuter history (related to Mexicans) might be traced back
to the second decade of the century, when the 1921, 1924 and 1927
Immigration Acts made reference to this category. But it was not
until the Registration Act of 1940 that the category of commuter
was sanctioned by the Congress in its actual form.
The commuter phenomena acquired numerical importance since 1954,
the year of the Operation Wetback. See Table V. We must point out
that the figures available for the development of this topic do not
indicate its actual history, as we learn from the Report of the Se-
lect Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration that says to this
respect:
Many thousands of Mexican citizens are per-
mitted to enter this country for business or
4811
pleasure with entry documents that do not per-
mit them to work. Undoubtedly some of these
visitors do work, despite the best efforts of
U.S. authorities. Such illegal, wetback,
workers would be regarded in the popular mind
as commuters but would not appear in any of-
ficial or semi-official estimate of the volume
of alien commuters. (R.S.C.W.H.I. , 1963:114).
With reference to those who enter the U.S. but who are not per-
mitted to work, the U.S. Counsul General at Tijuana, Mexico stated
"Considerable in excess of 150,000 are estimated to be holding border
crossing cards issued by I.N.S. at San Ysidro". (S.C.W.H.I. Hearings,
Part I, 1968:16).
That is to say, the volume of the commuter phenomena comprises
1) The "green card" (Form 1-151) holder, 2) The crossing card (Form I-
186) holder who crosses legally but may work illegally in the U.S.
and 3) The wetback who lives in the border side of Mexico and crosses
back and forth illegally.
We shall attempt to draw a picture of the commuter phenomena by
inferring from scattered information about some aspects of each category.
The first dimension is shown in Table V, although we must point
out that the figures for 1967 at least, appear to be incongruent with
a statement made by George K. Rosenberg, Los Angeles District Director
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who said:
From time to time a sample count is taken
and the last such sampling was taken between
November 1, 1967 and December 31, 1967, the
total number of commuters crossing the border
between Mexico and California during this per-
iod was 15,284. (S.C.W.H.I., Part II, 1968:
6).
These figures, however, and those in Table V, are generally
considered conservative, because regular statistics are not kept and
4812
9
oo
H
O
H
w
•U
s
o
o
w
<
•o
a
•a
CD
|
S5
u
p
u
CD
•§
D
U
CO
o
00
vD
r-
<f
o
<?■
co
r-4
CO
o
si-
vO
CM
. o
o
•>
«
•»
A
«
a
O
(-•
CO
<r
S*
o-
sf
<r
<r
m
vO
l^
oo
vO
vO
vO
vO
vO
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
rH
ON
CO
vO
m
vO
ON
o
o
r^«
o
00
r>»
ON
r-
si*
oo
ON
•»
*
m
•»
«
vO
cm
CM
f-t
m
m
CM
OJ
CO
sj-
m
m
CO
ON
o
t-«
CM
CO
m
m
vO
vO
vO
vO
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
CO
m
CM
o
r-H
!>.
oo
<r
o
CM
CM
O
r-i
VO
r*
CO
CO
•»
m
•»
•*
•»
n
ON
r*
o
CO
r-i
ON
rH
CO
sir
vO
<r
OJ
CO
<3"
m
vO
r^
in
m
m
m
m
m
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
c
o
•H
XJ
ctf
J~»
00
CD
M
CD
a.
w
♦H
E
<u
«
c
M
CJ
-u
W
CD
o
a
o
♦H
W
(0
I •
O vO
o m
i
4J O
O <*
r-« •
o a.
en p.
<u
o
o
4813
other than "green carders" commute.
In reference to category (2) we shall take into account part
of the testimony of Mr. Rosenberg at the same hearings:
Mr. Scammon: What about the 72-hour cardholders,
do you have any estimate as to how
many there are in the area?
Mr. Rosenberg: No, Sir, I don't have any estimate
because we keep no statistics.
Mr. Scammon:
Would there be several hundred thou-
sand?
Mr. Rosenberg: Yes, I would say that for the reason
that we inspect monthly at San Ysidro,
approximately two million people a
month. Now, that is counting the
same body each time they cross. And
the bulk of these people would be 72-
hour cardholders.
Mr. Scammon: Rather than commuters?
Mr. Rosenberg: Yes, we feel that there are about
15,000 commuters crossing from Mexico
into California. (R.S.C.W.H. I. , Part II,
1968:8)
The Form 1-186 (crossing card or shopping card or 72-hour card)
is valid for 4 years. (S.C.W.H.I., Part I, 1968:9). Most of the aliens
working illegally in the border area have entered legally by using the
crossing card (S.C.W.H.I., Part II, 1968:13).
No one knows how many persons cross legally using the crossing
and shopping card and work illegally in the U.S. The number, however,
must be in the thousands. In Tijuana it is estimated that 150,000
persons have such cards and 75,000 in Juarez. El Paso issues between
2,500 and 3,000 of these cards monthly. Brownsville issues 1,500 to
2,000 monthly. Also hundreds of these cards are revoked monthly along
all check points, because the violators have been caught working.
(S.C.W.H.I., Hearings, Part 1:10; Part 111:12).
4814
>
W
3
W
0)
. jj
CO
to o
co
u cr>
CJ 1—4
ID
u o
O -U
PQ
•H i_>
X o
<u a;
•»-• _.
*-> ,r^
o
a u
jz a.
jj
»o
c c
•H CO
CO O
60ȣ>
C CT\
CO H
o o
4J
c
o o
jj ax
(0 rH
rH N-/
D
a.
o
c
o
•H
u O
O CO
<U ON
•f-|rH
o
rH
o
CD
co DO
G
CO
O O
u
o
xO
ON
o
l/N,
ON
a>
■U
00
o
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
f-l
o
r-
\D
-3-
o
00
•i
•*
m
M
♦»
A
*
CO
o
o
r*.
m
ON
o
o
CM
p*.
m
CO
rH
vO
^
vO
co
vO
o
CM
CO
n
■t
•»
«%
M
A
•*
CM
rH
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
rH
r-4
o>
on
vO
<T
vO
on
•<r
m
CM
CO
CM
CM
sr
CM
<*
m
<r
r-4
m
CO
<r
eg
CO
CM
<r
vO
on
CO
CO
r^
00
CO
i-i
r»
r-»
i-t
CO
rH
sr
o
vO
r>»
sr
CO
<t-
\0
CM
CM
o
CM
CO
CM
CO
«n
CM
ON
o
r^
o
St
a
*
A
*
rH
r-*
rH
•n
i/S
<r
ON
rH
r-.
C-
CO
vO
r-l
i-l
ON
o
vO
vO
ON
<r
vO
r-l
vO
rH
ON
•»
M
•1
M
#»
*
A
vO
vO
o
o
o
CO
CM
CM
<f
CM
<]•
r-t
rH
NO
CM
oo
r»
!>.
»o
r^
CO
»-3
CO
<
•H
H
C
O
U
H
o
*H
\
C
w
•H
cO
o
CO
rH
P
CO
C)
0,
M
X.
r-4
i-3
•H
O
CO
•H
CO
rH
o
P
o
)-<
P
CO
JZ
rC
>
O
CO
••-1
•H
CO
CU
e
B
to
JZ
O
3
o
CO
PQ
O
o
2
w
H
4815
The third category which we call the wetback-commuter is the
most difficult to estimate. However, if it is considered that over
200,000 wetbacks were apprehended in 1969 and the great majority were
apprehended near the border, the number must be considerable.
Analysis and Conclusion
Immigration of Mexicans to the U.S. appears related to a number
of factors. Without implying either causality nor order of importance,
these factors are suggested: 1) The demand for cheap labor in the
United States. 2) The high population growth in Mexico. 3) Mexico's
inability to keep up with this growth in terms of providing opportunities
for employment, housing and education, despite tremendous advances
and rapid economic development during the past thirty years. 4) The
internal migration, rural to urban, which has taken place, focusing
on the Federal District and the northern border cities.
Table VI shows thatMexico' s population, using the 1960 census,
will double by 1980. (Benitez and Cabrera, 1966). Such growth suggest
the need for great economic development which will provide the employ-
ment, housing and education necessary to accommodate this growth. Since
the economic development has not kept up with the population growth,
the rural population in the less developed areas have been moving to
the urban or more developer' areas. This migration had its beginning
at the turn of the century and its direction has been more and more
the Federal District and the cities of the northern border. (Galarza,
1966:28). Between 1950 and 1960 the Federal District received 487.
of the emigrants from other Mexican states, whereas the border states
of Baja California, Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon received 387. of the
emigrants (Benitez ar.d Cabrera, 1966:112). Table VII shows the
4816
w
o
•H •
a.
•H
o
c
u
<u
*o
n
o
PQ
C
o
cu
o
o
•H
CO
H
3
a.
o
U-l
o
<u
W)
a;
CO
bO
•U
C
C
CO
o
.c
o
u
n
<y
Pn
r«.
vO
o>
rH
CO
>-l
CO
O
(U
vO
><
CT>
c-H
o
<t
C7N
f-t
o
•^
a.
•H
o
•r-<
c
3
S3
CO
s^
f-< 00
o
CO
o
CTN
vO
IT>
vO
on
CM
03
C
CO
3
O
o
CO
CM
vO
CO
vO
O
a\
as
oo
CM
o>
as
co
vO
CM
CM
O
m
r-l
(0
O
•H
4J
co
CO
l-l
co
o
CO
o
vO
a\
CM
O
CO
o
<u
CO
N
<D
O
P
>
tU
fi>
3
3
•->
55
J-l
o
.a
vO
c«
CO
►4
i—i
•» '
M-l
a\
o
o
r^.
u
•>
C
CM
CD
C
j_>
CO
V-i
CM
vrt
r~*
a,
•>
a)
CO
O
vO
CO
•
CM
CO
vO
vO
cr>
o
•H
C«
• O
•H
C
3
w«
M
O
«
V)
<u
u
3
00
X.
co
JO
3
c
p
0)
o
3
o
C/l
4817
increase (1940 to 1967) of the four largest municiplos on the Mexican
border. (A raunicipio is similar to a county.) Benitez and Cabrera
(1966) have stated that the population of the six border states was
5,486,434 in 1960. Their projections to 1980 for the six states are
13,860,800 (Benitez and Cabrera, 1966:123-175). If the 1967 population
of only the municipios along the border was close to three million,
then it is clear that the cities along the border are the destination
for this northern migration. The border cities have long served as a
magnet which has attracted millions of people, many of them hoping to
jump the border and find employment in the United States. This then
constitutes the cheap labor pool which we have been stressing in this
paper.
With such an abundant supply of labor on the border willing and
even eager to work, it is not difficult to exploit it, considering the
economies of the two countries. If the unemployed Mexican could get
a job in Mexico his wages in all probability would not exceed $2.50 per
day ($2.00 per day being theminimum). If he is offered between 50c
to $1.00 per hour in the U.S. he would be doing very well by Mexican
standards. U.S. citizens, however, would find it difficult to stay
above poverty even at $2.00 per hour.
We hypothesize that the demand for cheap labor in the U.S.,
particularly in the agricultural, service, and unskilled occupations,
complements the movement of Mexicans to the border, resulting in the
consequent seepage into the U.S. As legal and illegal aliens come
across by the thousands, wage levels are kept low and the domestic
labor force becomes unemployed and many leave the area in search of
employment. For years Mexican-Americans from the border area have
4818
been the chief source of supply for the agricultural migrant streams*
throughout the United States.
Cheap labor, besides lowering wages and displacing domestic
labor has other consequences. It frustrates attempts at unionization
and collective bargaining. Those who profit from this labor are a
party to the creation of serious problems in the fields of public
health, housing, transportation, education, delinquency, familial re-
lationships, public welfare and the uprooting of populations.
All In all, the ill-gotten profits from the
exploitation of this illegal lbor seems poor
compensation for the myriad real evils and pot-
ential dangers attendant on the use and encourage-
ment of Wetbacks (Sanchez and Saunders, 1951:3).
Those population movements from the interior of Mexico to the
northern border while related to Mexico's population growth and its
economy, appear to us to be more closely related to the demand for
cheap labor in the United States. In a sense the United States has
created the Bracero. the wetback, and the commuter.
Those who argue that we shouldn't tamper too much with the pre-
sent border situation for fear of reprisals from Mexico, need but re-
view the U.S.'s violations of the Bracero agreements and the recent
Project Intercept. Mexico for years has protested the treatment that
her citizens have received in the U.S., but seldom has it brought re-
prisals. And the exploitation, prejudice and discrimination continues.
The resolution of many of these problems can begin on this side
of the border by the enforcement of existing immigration laws as applied
to commuters. We could establish and enforce laws which would punish
those who employ illegal aliens. We could establish minimum wage laws
*The build-up of the Mexican-American population outside of the Southwest
can be noted, as they drop off the migrant stream.
4819
applicable to all labor. We could recognize that agribusiness is an
Industry and does not need preferential treatment and its workers
should have the right of collective bargaining and unionization.
Mexico's economic development has ignored the border area for
years. This development, although beginning, should be intensified
In proportion to the need. We don't agree that the movement of
American industry across the border is a sound approach.
It is obvious that problems of this magnitude and of interna-
tional consequence require sets of priorities acceptable to both
nations. Cooperation in and coordination of programs would be es-
sential.
Perhaps a step in this direction was the ill-fated U.S. -Mexico
Joint Border Commission on Development and Friendship, which the
present administration saw fit to discontinue.
4820
LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED
Benitez, Zenteno Raul and Gustavo Cabrera A. Proyecciones de la
Poblacion de Mexico 1960-1980, Banco de Mexico, S. A., Mexico
D.F., Departamento de Investigaciones Industrales, 1966.
Bremer, Edith T. "Development of Private Social Work With The Foreign
Born", The Annals, Thorsten Sellin (Ed.)t Philadelphia, The
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1949. pp. 139-
148.
Bustamante, Jorge A. "Don Chano: Autobiograf ia de un Emigrante
Mexicano", 1969. (Unpublished).
Carpenter, Niles. Immigrants and Their Children 1920, Department
Of Commarce Bureau of The Census, Washington, D. C, U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1927
Ekler, Ross A. and Jack Zlotnick, "Immigration and Labor Force", The
Annals, Thorsten Sellin (Ed.), Philadelphia, The American Academy
-of Political and Social Science. 1949. pp. 92-102
Galarza, Ernesto. Merchants of Labor, The Mexican Bracero History,
Santa Barbara, California, McNally & Loftin, 1964.
Gamio, Manuel. Mexican Immigration to the United States, Chicago,
Illinois, The University of Chicago Press, 1930,
Gordon, Charles and Harry N. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure,
Albany, New York, Banks and Company, 1959.
Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life, New York, N.Y.,
Oxford University Press, 1964.
Hadley, Eleanor M. "A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem", Law
and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 21, 1956. pp. 334-357.
Hill, Joseph. U.S. Senate, "Occupations of the First and Second Genera-
tion of Immigrants in the U.S." (Report of the Immigration
Commission) Vol. 23, 5, Document 282, Washington, D. C, Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1911.
Jones, Laraar B. "Mexican American Labor Problems in Texas", Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Texas. (Microfilmed copy) 1965.
McBride, John G. Vanishing Bracero, San Antonio, Texas, The Naylor
Company, 1963.
Mexico, VIII Censo General de Poblacion 1960. Mexico, D. F.,
Direccion General de Estadistica, 1963.
Report of the Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration,
Washington, D. C, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
4821
Sanchez, George and Lyle Saunders, in Saunders and Leonard, 1951.
Saunders, Lyle. "The Social History of Spanish-Speaking People in
Southwestern United States Since 1846", Southwest Council on
■Education of Spanish Speaking People. Albuquerque, New Mexico
1950.
Scholes, William E., "The Migrant Worker" in Julian Satr.ora (Ed.), La
Raza: Forgotten Africans , Notre Dane, Indiana, University of
Notre Dame Press, 1966.
Scruggs, Otey M. , "Texas and The Bracero Program 1942-1947", Pacific
Historical Review, August, 1963.
Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, Hearings, Parts
I, II and III, Washington, D. C, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968.
Wittke, Carl. "Immigration Policy Prior to World War I", in The Annals,
„Thorsten Sellin (Ed.), Philadelphia, The American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 1949. pp. 5-15.
4822
TESTIMONY
OF
MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT
1329 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
The Migrant Research Project (M.R.P.) of the Manpower Evalua-
tion and Development Institute is funded by the Office of Economic Opportun-
ity under the authority of Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act cf
1964 as amended. The purposes of the Project are to:
a) Provide emergency food and medical services and funds
to needy migrants .
b) Accumulate and document facts which establish the exis-
tence of practices and attitudes which exclude migrants
from adequate participation in federal food and other
relevant federal benefits programs.
c) Provide technical assistance to migrant groups and
to government agencies in an effort to improve the pro-
vision of needed service to migrants.
FEDERAL FOOD AND BENEFITS PARTICIPATION STUDIES
We are attaching as appendices to our testimony an in-depth
study on migrant access to and participation in federal food programs in
the State of Michigan during the peak migrant months in 1969 (Appendix A)
and a general report prepared by our staff relating to migrant partici-
pation in federally funded benefits programs (Appendix B) . These reports
clearly document the inability of migrant families, who are eligible to
participate in federal food programs and desperately in need of food, to
prove their eligibility and thereby receive the benefits of these pro-
4823
grams at the time when they are most in need. Through these studies
as well as other ongoing research activities, our experience in adminis-r
tering grahts to organizations providing emergency food and medical ser-
vices to migrants in all parts of the country and reports furnished our
organization by cooperating local agencies and indigenous local groups, we
have identified certain basic legal and administrative obstacles to sig-
nificant migrant participation in the federally funded food programs. Many
of the most prevalent manifestations are set forth in these appendices.
None of these obstacles are new. Many were documented in the hear-
ings before your subcommittee last year.' Yet despite official aware-
ness of them — and despite the realization that because of increased mechan-
ization in stream states, the hunger problem will be even more acute this
year — no measures have been taken to alleviate the stiuation.
Another serious obstacle to significant migrant participation in
the federal food programs relate to the date relied upon by U.S. D. A. in
formulating and evaluating its food programs. Based upon discussions be-
tween MRP staff members and U.S.D.A. officials in charge of administering
the federal food programs, the following seems clear:
1) U.S.D.A. food officials do not consider nor do they rely
upon information collected by other branches of U.S.D.A
where it concerns matters directly affecting the hunger
and nutritional needs of migrants. (An example would be
the availability of work to the migrants due to weather
and crop conditions or the increasing use of mechanization,
even though such information is made available to the
migrants ' employer .
2) policy-making officials do not require tabulations or
studies of migrant participation in federal food programs
in spite of the availability of such information under
the record keeping and reporting requirements of relevant
acts.
3) the statistical data gathered through the United States
4824
Bureau of the Census and relied upon by U.S.D.A. to
make policy decisions is inadequate because the base of
the sample used contains less than 50,000 persons, nor
does the data set forth include a detailed breakdown
within the category of "Mixed Farm Working Force" of days
worked and wages earned on farm and non-farm employment.
The 1970 census offers little prospect of a clearer pro-
file of the special characteristics of migrants as a pop-
ulations group. The decennial census, including the 1970
survey presently underway, is not structured to differ-
entiate between migrants and all other farm workers. In
fact, it would be impossible to do so since Government
agencies have failed to agree upon a definition of a
"migrant agricultural worker." The U. S. Department of
\ Labor, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the
Office of Economic Opportunity have developed independent
definitions for eligibility for their various programs
with respect to a "migrant." At times, there have been
conflicting definitions developed for programs within
a Department. As a result, the "migrant worker" is a
"migrant worker" for one program, but, at the same time,
may not be a "migrant worker" for another government pro-
gram.
Even assuming that better data collection methods were em-
ployed by U.S.D.A., there are other institutionalized impediments to an
effective evaluation of migrant participation in food programs . There
is no systematic collection of information on an annual basis (e.g.,
a yearly updating of the decennial survey) with suitable detail to
enable planning, execution and assessment of existing programs or the
tailoring of programs to meet the nutritional, employment and other
needs of migrants. In short, there is a need to build into the data
collection process the utilization of social indicators - a form of
social accounting - to guarantee that the actual conditions under which
migrants live are recorded and to measure the changes in those condi-
tions over a period of time.
Furthermore, since more than one department of the federal
government is charged with responsibility for alleviating the migrants'
4825
plight, there is a need to create an interdepartmental council to
oversee and integrate, on a coordinated basis, an effort to redress
some of the current and easily anticipated problems that beset the
migrant -- e.g., his health and nutritional needs, displacement by
mechanization and generally uncertain employment opportunities, and
substandard housing conditions — to name only a few of the ills
capable of immediate interdepartmental action.
Finally, in contrast to limited and contradictory data
presumably relied upon by government policy-makers, the income and
demographic data contained in Appendices A, B and C shows: (1) a high
migrant eligibility for participation in federal benefits programs; and
(2) low migrant participation due to a variety of administrative and
legal barriers.
This pressing need for immediate action is still further
highlighted by an employment and mechanization report contained as
Appendix B. This report convincingly demonstrates the limited nature
of work opportunities available this year for migrants working in the
"stream states." It also lends substantial credence to the many
reports of an impending hunger and nutritional crisis — i.e., unemployed
or underemployed migrants are expected to be stranded in stream states
in much greater numbers than last year, without food or monetary re-
sources, and still others will be forced to return to the home base
states without sufficient savings from instream earnings to allow
them to subsist until the next season for migratory labor.
Under these circumstances, at the very minimum, it is sub-
mitted that the Secretary of Agriculture has a clear legal duty to de-
velop programs this year to increase substantially migrant access to
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 20
4826
and participation in federal food stamp and commodity distribution pro-
grams. In any case, it is now clear that the Secretary of Agriculture
possesses sufficient discretion to take positive steps by regulation
or formal instruction to abate significantly the hunger and nutritional
crises facing the many migrants in our country today under either the
Pood Stamp or Commodities Distribution statutes. See, Arlett Peoples
v. United States Department of Agriculture, F.2d C.A.D.C.,
(1970) ; Joy v. United States Department of Agriculture, 308 F. Supp.100
(N.D. Texas, 1969) .
4827
MICHIGAN HOUSING STUDY
Preliminary Findings
An intensive effort was made during the summer of 1969 to study
the housing provided migrants working in the State of Michigan. The pre-
liminary report of our efforts is attached as Appendix D. One hundred
and forty-eight camps, situated in 33 different counties and varying in
size between 6 and 261 occupants, were observed. The housing conditions
recorded by our observers affected roughly 5,000 migrants.
The housing provided for migrant workers commonly consisted of
cabins, farmhouses, motels, barns or garages, and in some instances even
more primitive facilities. Not only was the housing generally found to
be inadequate for the purpose intended, but to be structurally unsound
as well. For example, observations revealed that 34% of the units had
wet floors, 29% leaking roofs, 25% leaking floors.
In the same vein, a clear pattern of violations can be discerned
in a myriad of important areas such as drainage; maintenance of an ade-
quate, accessible and safe water supply; and provisions for recreational
areas, eating facilities and lighting for common areas and facilities ad-
jacent to the camp. Taken together, it is clear that migrants are not
provided adequate and soundly maintained housing, nor the benefits cus-
tomarily afforded other inhabitants of dwellings.
Overcrowding of these basically unsound units further accentu-
ated the deficiencies found. For example, beds were not always available
for the inhabitants and, when provided, almost invariably served more
than two persons. Similarly, the same tabulation showed that 68% of the
4828
children over six slept in the same room as their parents, contrary to
regulations.
With health hazards due to overcrowding, poor drainage and
structurally unsound construction already manifest to our observers,
basic sanitation problems were also documented. For instance, only 22%
of the camps provided a toilet for each housing unit. For the remaining
units, the common privies provided were found to be insufficient in
number and badly maintained and ventilated.
The camps were also regarded as hazardous by our observers.
While this finding involves an element of subjectivity, it has particular
significance since most units are constructed of easily ignitable material
such as wood. Typical findings included inadequate and distantly placed
fire-fighting equipment, bare or exposed electrical wiring, and inade-
quate or non-existent heating facilities necessitating the use of supple-
mentary heating devices. The susceptibility to accidental fires, parti-
cularly where the facilities are overcrowded and littered with trash and
garbage, seems self-evident.
One other basic finding merits attention. The camps housing
federally recruited workers, while in violation of many regulations, were
found to have measurably fewer overall violations per camp than those
subject only to Michigan regulations. This finding is held to be signi-
ficant because the federal standard serves as a model for state regulations
and enforcement procedures.
RECOMMENDAT ION S
While limited in scope, our demonstration project documents a
4829
compelling case for further investigative and regulatory action. The
most effective effort would initially involve a comprehensive study under
the auspices of the state or federal government, followed by an adminis-
trative effort to correct any abuses found. Short of such an undertaking,
a serious effort should be made to deputize as researchers, inspectors or
in both capacities, interested parties such as students or volunteer
groups. Either of these proposals should provide the ba^is for a systema-
tic enforcement effort designed to overcome defects presumably attributable
to limited personnel, budget resources, or other less tangible impediments.
Basic to any effective system for enforcement is a recognition,
on the part of those agencies and officials charged with the duty to in-
spect, that persons employing migrant laborers have a continuing duty to
maintain the premises in conformity with existing housing, health and
sanitary regulations. Of primary importance is the prevention of occu-
pany-related violations which were so frequently documented by our demon-
stration project. Occupancy related violations can only be determined by
inspections and re-inspections conducted during the season. Pre-season
inspection, as is customarily the case in Michigan, provides no meaningful
inspection for violations of critical regulations such as occupancy limi-
tations or even general maintenance requirements.
The present sanctions for violations found - i.e., cancellation
of federal work orders or revocation of state licenses - are equally
ineffectual. By the time that an inspection uncovers a violation warrant-
ing these strong sanctions, the migrant has already been recruited and may
even be leaving the camp. He gains nothing from imposition of either
sanction, and he may even lose his job or only source of housing as the
result of belated enforcement efforts.
4830
Two basic administrative reforms , both within the discretion
of the enforcement officials, offer the most constructive alternative.
First, the-re is a need for a uniform policy governing the granting of
conditional licenses. Temporary licenses, as well as waivers of the
regulations, should only be granted upon a clear showing of necessity and
of steps to be taken to correct the deficiencies cited. Moreover, per-
sonnel and resources for efforts to monitor compliance should be allocated
to accord significance to the probationary status. Secondly, where non-
compliance or failure to meet conditions attached to the probationary
status is found, stiff fines should be levied without undue delay. For
fines to be an effective sanction, it is presupposed that an efficient
complaint procedure (perhaps, a summary procedure) be implemented, pre-
ferably one related to the existing license or revocation system.
The recommendations discussed here are necessarily oriented to
the short term and confined to the data uncovered by our demonstration
project. They are included, not to minimize the problem, but to offer
tangible data and workable alternatives for action now to alleviate a
disgraceful problem in our nation.
4831
RAMIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
T,he data presented has many ramifications regarding the nutri-
tional needs of migrants. Of the 1,130 families, 69% reported incomes
of less than $2,500 for the past year. While many studies have been
conducted to determine the amount of money needed to feed a family, none
reviewed by U. M.O.I, in preparing this report claim that a family of five
can meet its nutritional needs on $2,500 a year.
There are programs available to assist families with emergency
food needs namely, the Food Stamp and Commodity Programs offered by each
County Department of Social Services within the State. There are also a
variety of educational pamphlets designed to educate low income families
regarding economic ways of meeting family nutritional needs.
Nevertheless, both types of programs - educational materials or
free food - remain unavailable to the migrant often for similar reasons.
They cannot get emergency food assistance because they do not know where
to go. And, even if they seek out assistance, the hungry migrants may
not be able to receive the benefits to which they are entitled, either
because they are unable to communicate their needs, or cannot provide the
information necessary to satisfy agency certification requirements. In-
deed, the fact that 40% of the heads of households were functionally il-
literate and 30% speak only Spanish explains in part the failure of ex-
isting programs, frequestly lacking bilingual staffs, to reach this
target, population.
Based on U. M.O.I, experience last summer, the following recommen-
dations have been offered to the appropriate State and Federal Agencies
in an effort to improve the emergency food service available to migrants
4832
and seasonal agricultural workers in the State of Michigan.
1. Agencies distributing food stamps as commodities should
make special provisions to expedite the servicing of
migrants. Specific steps to be taken should include
evening office hours; utilization of bilingual staff or
volunteers; and the vending of food stamps on a daily
basis rather than only on certain days.
2. Migrants should be allowed self -certification when initially
applying for food assistance. This will do away with the
5 to 10 day waiting period all too frequently required for
farmer's or area crew leader's verification of wages.
3. State plans should be amended to provide for state-wide cer-
tification procedures. Once a migrant family has been cer-
tified in one county, a certification card which will allow
the family to receive service in all other counties in the
state should be issued, without going through the same
question and answer sessions.
4. Commodity counties should make provisions to have additional
food stuffs available during the harvest season. Furthermore,
supplemental direct relief monies should be made available to
provide supplemental but essential foods not available with
commodities.
These recommendations are regarded as minimal and of the nature
that warrant applications to all other states with similar problems. These
serious deficiencies documented to the report can be met by a concerted
effort between cooperating state and federal agencies to bring the migrant
workers as a class within the purview of the food program into which they
are entitled to participate by law.
4833
APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
During the summer of 1969, United Migrant for Opportunity, Inc.
(U. M.O.I.),* received funds for two programs that enabled the agency to
become acutely aware of the hunger and health problems confronting migra-
tory and seasonal agricultural workers within Michigan. The first program
was one enabling the agency to provide emergency food to meet the needs of
malnutrition and starvation due to' such factors as low income, lack of
work, inability of the head of household to work, etc. Funds to meet these
and other emergency food needs were distributed to needy families only
after attempts were made to get assistance from the duly mandated state
agency, the Department of Social Services.
The second program was a University Affiliated Migrant Research
and Service Program which provided summer employment for thirty-four college
students. All but four of them were either bilingual or Mexican-American.
The student had the following responsibilities:
1) Provide outreach services to migrants.
2) Inform migrants of various agency services and programs avail-
able to assist them.
3) Provide referral and interpretive assistance in order to help
migrants get the required services.
4) Provide follow-up to determine the adequacy of services pro-
vided.
*U. M.O.I, is funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity under Title
III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act, as amended. U. M.O.I, alf.o receives
funds to carry en its emergency food and medical services from the Migrant
Research Project, and the study herein elaborated is based on a report fur-
nished to Migrant Research Project as part of the funding relationship be-
tween the two organizations.
4834
5) Distribute U. M.O.I, emergency funds when necessary.
6) Gather socio-economic data on the demographic character-
istics of the target population.
The demographic characteristics of the migrant family point up
four salient characteristics of the migrant head of household. 77.2%
were Mexican-American; 62.7% had eight years or less of education,-
40.12% were considered to be functionally illiterate; 35% were unable
to communicate in English. Thus, a substantial portion of this econ-
omically poor population - a group confronted with the likelihood of
earning even less money this summer due to unemployment - can neither read,
write, nor otherwise adequately communicate with most persons they en-
counter. Furthermore, these families are generally required to travel
to more than one county to work - frequently as many as three or four
during the harvest season. Each county will have a food program that
differs in some manner, a most serious obstacle for persons unable
to communicate with non-migrants. Some may have food stamps, others
only commodities; some will sell the stamps at the welfare office; others
will require the client to purchase them at a bank; some will try to
vend stamps every day and during the evening, others will only vend two
days a week; some will have bilingual staff to service those who do not
speak English, others will not; but all will, however, require the migrant
to go through a laborious certification.
4835
DATA GATHERED
Number of Families
Percentage
283
22%
851
47%
435
25%
109
6%
18
1%
A total of 1,811 migrant families consisting of 9,630 individuals were
served by the University Affiliated Research and Service Program. Some of the
data relevant to food and health needs is listed below.*
1) Family Annual Income
Income
$ 0 - $ 999
$1,000 - $2,499
$2,500 - $4,999
$5,000 - $6,999
$7,000 - and over
2) Jwerage Size of Family
5.3 Members
3 ) Head of Household Literacy
Percentage
36%
40%
24%
Percentage
77%
10%
4%
8%
1%
Number
Literate
652
Illiterate
724
Uncertain
435
4) Family Ethnic
Group
Ethnic Group
Number
Mexican-American
1,394
Negro
181
Puerto Rican
71
Caucasian
145
Cuban
19
5) Head of
Household
- Language Spoken
Language
Number
Spanish only
652
Snanish and Engl
ish
796
English only
198
Unknown
165
Percentage
36%
44%
11%
9%
*It must be pointed out that the statistical data is not the result of
stratified random samples; however, it is to the knowledge of U. M.O.I, per-
sonnel the largest sampling of migrants covered by any study in the state.
4836
EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM
During the summer and early fall of 1969, U. M.O.I, distributed $35,000.CJ
in emergency food monies to 7,000 migrant individuals in 1,324 migrant familij
who had below poverty level incomes and were in danger of malnutrition and/orj
starvation, but were unable to get assistance from the local county welfare |
agencies. Monies were provided only after an attempt had been made to get
food assistance from established agency sources. The primary reason for the
migrants' need to obtain assistance was the lack of work available due to
either a delay in the ripening of crops or a lack in the number of jobs.
There were eight major reasons that accounted for the failure of the
county service delivery system to meet the nutritional needs of these migrant!
thus necessitating resort to U. M.O.I, emergency food monies:
1) Agency was not open (pertains to migrant clients who arrived on
week-ends) .
2) Commodities were the only source of assistance, and families
could not get such essential items as whole milk, meats, fresh
fruits and vegetables .
3) The family was required to wait up to one month to receive
commodities.
4) The family was not eligible for food stamps because of its
previous monthly income which barred participation according
to state welfare certification practice.
5) Family did not have available sufficient cash to purchase the
food stamps to v/hich it was entitled.
6) The family was unable to get food stamps because the county
agency only permits application and/or vending on certain days j
and during certain hours, but the family had immediate food
needs.
7) County agencies not allowing self-certification required either j
the employer or the crew leader to verify the lack of family
income. (This process often required five to ten days which
was too long when a family was without food.)
8) County agencies not being able to establish adequate
^ certification procedures due to restrictive office
hours and/or a lack of bilingual staff.
4837
APPENDIX B
MECHANIZATION AND RECRUITMENT REPORT
■In an effort to document the increasing use of mechanization
and chemicals and to make tentative projections relating to the employ-
ment opportunities available to migrants the remainder of this year, the
Migrant Research Project has recently conducted an informal study of
selected states where information could be obtained from reliable and
knowledgeable sources.
In gathering this information, the Migrant Research Project inter-
viewed its own grantees, public officials, and migrants and leaders of
their organizations. To narrow the focus of the inquiry, considerable
reliance was placed upon specific questions which were directed toward
the impact of impending mechanization on employment. Yet it must be
stressed that the sampling taken was limited, and not based on a scien-
tific effort, although an attempt to obtain representativeness was made.
The results of this study can analytically be broken down according to
the various states or regions sampled and are summarized as follows:
Washington
An Office of Economic Opportunity grantee there reported that in
the area where it operated the following crops are to be mechanized
this year: (a) grapes (there are 32 machines on hand in the area, each
one replacing 51 nigrant workers); (b) hops; and (c) asparagus. More-
over, in spite of the impending mechanization, the same source reports
that the State Employment Service has been recruiting hand-labor for
these crops in the same numbers as was recruited during the past year.
4838
Michigan
According to a variety of contacts there including those made
with the Regional Office of the Federal Laobr Service, and Office of Ec-
onomic Opportunity-funded migrant program, the State Employment Service,
and an agricultural economist at Michigan State University, 50,000 work-
ers are expected to arrive in the State of Michigan in 1970. Not all of
these persons, however, were recruited through the Michigan or federal re-
cruitment system; nevertheless, on the basis of recruitment by farmers and
growers, and word-of -mouth transmission of rumored employment opportuni-
ties, that number is expected in the State of Michigan.
At the same time, our survey revealed that only a few contracts
covering 9000 jobs had been let. The number of contracts made to date must
be contrasted with the number made in the year of 1968: In that year, Mich-
igan had let 28,000 contracts for the employment of 74,000 migrants. Since
our information was gathered at a point in time when the normal recruit-
ment process had come to an end, it can be concluded that there is a decline
of 65,000 jobs and 27,700 contracts, when contrasted with the recruitment
year of 1968. Many of these persons will be without employment, as the
same sources indicate that only 15,000 workers will be employed this sum-
mer in Michigan.
Note: A late check before printing of this report reveals (June 10) the
regional office of the U. S. Department of Labor does not antici-
pate more than 1500 to 2000 surplus workers in the state of Michi-
gan djuring the summer. This is due to corrective action taken by
U. S. Department of Labor since the issuance of the above.
4839
Colorado
.An Office of Economic Opportunity-funded project in Colorado
informed our personnel that approximately 9000 migrants will come into
Colorado this summer. Due to mechanization projections, it is anticipated
that the total employment in the state will be reduced, according to these
same sources, by 7500 jobs. For example, it was reported that a major
crop, sugar beets, will employ only 50 to 60 percent of the workers who
were employed the previous year. The reduction in this instance, however,
is to be caused by a number of factors: an existing surplus sugar supply,
the resultant change in crops from beets to corn, reliance on available
local labor sources, and mechanization.
Based on information obtained from Texas, recruitment for this
area is generally down approximately 40%. Similarly, in Reinbeck, Iowa,
employment is down 30% for the harvesting of asparagus crops and the method
of recruitment has been changed. In this instance, recruitment was per-
formed by the processor, rather than recruitment of labor through the
State Employment Security Commission as has been the case in the past.
The purported reason for the change in the recruitment method was the
stepped-up-enforcement of housing regulations by the United States Depart-
ment of Laobr.
Wisconsin
The number of seasonal workers in rural industries declined in
Wisconsin from 1968 to 1969 according to the State Employment Service.
The number of rural food processing in-plant workers averaged 10,811 in
1968 and 10,190 in 1969, while plant employed field workers averaged 2,135
4840
per month in 1968 and 1,710 in 1969. Similar drops were reported in
other rural work categories.
Mid-Continent
A telephone inquiry to the U. S. Department of Labor Regional
Office of the Farm Labor Service revealed the following information on
clearance orders:
Clearance Orders for Interstate
Recruitment
Date
No. of Percent No. or Percent'
orders change workers change
Michigan
1969, 3/17 68
1970, 3/16 59
-14
2,298
3,537
+54
Ohio
1969, 3/18
1970, 3/16
135
189
+40
3,753
5,672
+51
Illinois, Indiana
Minnesota, Wisconsin
1969, 3/14
1970, 3/16
166
165
-01
15,194
12,998
In Michigan and Ohio the tendency is toward more workers per order
The reason for this is not known at this time.
The other four, mid-western states show a decline in both the num-
ber of workers recruited and the number of orders placed. However, the
number of workers recruited seems to be higher than can be employed if the
information on mechanization properly reflects the decline in jobs.
Last year gave ample evidence of what happens to the migrants
when recruitment is higher than jobs. Unless welfare agencies in the
state are prepared to assist the unemployed in a meaningful way, the depri-
4841
vation of the migrant is horrendous.
Note: Just prior to final .editing of this report, MRP again checked with
the United States Department of Labor Farm Labor Service, in the Chicago
region and learned of remedial steps take'n to alleviate the anticipated
problems in Michigan and the other mid-Continent states. These were:
1. Establishment of a regional coordinating committee composed
of representatives of various agencies including United States
Department of Labor; Housing and Urban Development; Agriculture-
Transportation; Health, Education, and Welfare to assist
states in working with migrants.
2. Worked in cooperation with the Texas State Employment Service
to alert migrants not to leave Texas without a definite job
placement.
3. Developed a special daily reporting system in each state to
determine amount of surplus farm labor to the regional De-
partment of Labor to enable corrective action to be taken.
4. Encouraged the Governors of each of the states to require the
State Departments of Welfare to accept "self-declaration
of income" from migrants for certification for food stamps
for at least the first thirty day issuance of food stamps.
5. Staff from a United States Department of Labor special research
program will be available to refer all migrants to available
welfare programs.
Florida
Various estimates of employment recruitment and mechanization
have been received by our personnel. For example, mid-March 1970 esti-
mates of unemployment among migrants in Florida was placed at approximate-
ly 24,000 persons by contacts with indigenous groups and a project funded
by the Office of Economic Opportunity that serves migrants. Leaders of the
indigenous groups contacted by MRP indicated that when work was available,
it was not full-time work, but rather the work consisted of a few hours per
day or lasted only two or three days in a given week.
36-513 O - 71 - pt.7B -- 21
4842
In contrast, reports from state officials focused on the diffi-
culty of recruiting labor for the short-term, part-time jobs and not on the
problem of unemployment or underemployment that the migrants reported. The
main effort made by Public officials of the state of Florida has been an
effort by the State Employment Service to fill "hard-to-place jobs", by
certifying the existence of labor shortage.
As a result of this conflicting information or perhaps perspec-
tives — i.e. one report emphasizing that a job shortage existed whereas
another group argued that, in reality, a labor surplus existed and was
under-utilized — conflicting information is available to the public and
regulatory agencies concerned with the affairs of migrants.
Texas
Recent contact with indigenous groups residing in the Rio Grande
Valley, indicated that only 12% to 15% of the migrants in the area were
working at the time of the interview. Of these workers, 70% were working
a 40-hour week, 30% a 20-hour week. Approximately 67,000 persons were
unemployed at the time of our contact.
Other Data Gathered by MRP
In the course of distributing emergency food and medical monies
in the home-based states of Florida and Texas when migrants were residing
there, other infornation was obtained - information which corroborates our
view that an employment and hunger crisis is impending. We spent funds at
the rate of $2000 to $4000 per day feeding people over a seven-day period.
During the period when the migrants were residing there, the amount of
money disbursed to individuals ranges from 20v to $1.00 per day per person.
4843
Based upon food monies disbursed and information gathered in
the informal contacts and survey efforts described above, it is the Migrant
Research Project's conclusion that mechanization has had and will have a
serious impact on the number of jobs available in 1970 in both the home
base states and in the stream states. In addition, contacts with leaders
of indigenous groups in both home base states of Texas and Florida indicate
that even more migrants than in previous years will enter into the migrant
stream this year, and that fewer jobs will be made available to them based
on reports of significant decreases in interstate recruitment for this
year in those states. The chaotic state of the market for migratory labor
becomes self-evident. In addition, if poor weather or mechanization at
the anticipated increased rate further upset an already chaotic labor mar-
ket, the problems facing migrant laborers will be intensified manyfold.
In effect, they will be forced to rely upon outside assistance to maintain
their families while residing in the stream states. Moreover, in many
instances, their meager earnings will not provide them with sufficient mon-
ies to return with their families to the home base state where they reside.
Even if they have sufficient funds to finance the trip home, the money
saved will be insufficient to maintain the families during the winter
months when limited work is available in those home base states. The result
anticipated is employment chaos and hunger of a dimension previously un-
known in both home base states and stream states impacted by migrants who
either will be underemployed or unemployed during many months of this
calendar year.
4844
APPENDIX 'C
BARRIERS TO MIGRANT PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL
FOOD AND OTHER BENEFITS PROGRAMS
I- Results of a Ten-State Study
In the early winter of 1969, the Migrant Research Project con-
ducted a comparative study of food distributed in 18 counties of ten
states, all of which are heavily populated by migrants during various
times of the year. The selection of states in the study expressly
included those with the greatest migrant populations, persons either
"home based" there or who migrate into the particular state to assist
in seasonal agricultural work. The selection of counties, in turn,
was dependent on the existence of food stamps or commodities distribution
program during 1968 and their housing a large migrant population dur-
ing that year. The purpose of the survey was to determine to what degree
migrants share in participation in Federal food programs, either during
the work season or during the winter slack employment season. Based on
information previously gathered, it was our hypothesis that food pro-
grams as then administered were not reaching a high percentage of the
migrant population.
In determining the size of migrant populations in the counties
selected, the figures so used were those listed in the 1969 Report of
the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. In addition, the monthly:-
reports of the United States Department of Agriculture Consumer and
Marketing Service, Food Assistance Programs, were used as the source
of information as to the average number of persons assisted per month over
4845
the designated period.
Using this information, a dual period analysis was employed.
This approach was designed to compare the level of participation
in food assistance programs during those periods of time when migrant
workers impacted the area against other periods of the year when there
were few or no migrants in the county. Florida and Texas were used for
the home base states; Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ore-
gon, Washington and Wisconsin were used as the "in stream" states.
Of the ten states studied Texas, Michigan and Wisconsin showed
an increase in the average number of persons assisted in a month during
periods when migrants were present. The rise in the level of assistance
was not, however, significant. In Texas, despite increased participation
due to an influx of migrants, less than 16% of the migrants in the
counties studied were served with food assistance programs during the
months studied. Yet migrants fared better in Texas than in any of the
other stream states. In Michigan, for example, less than 2% of the mi-
grants in any county studied were included in food programs; in Wisconsin,
less the .001% were included. In the other states, fewer people were
fed during the peak season than at other times of the year.
As a follow-up to our survey, our staff members made a study
of selected state plans and the implementation of such plans. When these
plans and the practices thereunder are considered in light of previously
discussed data, it is all too clear that migratory agricultural workers
were not considered or planned for in the development of or execution
of these state plans, all of which were approved by the United States
Department of Agriculture. It certainly seems ironic that the migrant
4846
agricultural worker cannot receive a modicum of concern from the
Department of Agriculture. This government agency, through its tremen-
dous resources, has available to it information on (a) the rate of
mechanization in agriculture; (b) knowledge as to the timing of the
harvest; (c) knowledge as to long-range weather predictions; (d) know-
ledge as to projected skills needed in agricultural work; (e) knowledge
as to the number of workers needed now and in the future; etc. Much
of this information is funded as government sponsored research, and the
results are made available to growers and growers ' associations. Yet
none of it is apparently made available to assist migrant agricultural
workers in seeking employment or in meeting recurrent hunger crises.
Were this information brought to bear in studying and approving state
plans for distribution of food, most of the problems that migrants now
face in participating in such programs would be eliminated.
II. Identifiable Obstacles to Significant
Migrant Participation in Federal Food
Programs .
1. Food Stamps.
Barriers which made it impossible for food stamp participation
by migrant and seasonal agricultural workers and thereby necessitated
resort to Migrant Research Project assistance last year can be categorized
as follows:
1) The workers arrived to harvest crops well in advance of the
season and they needed food to survive;
2) Both home base counties and stream state counties are not
prepared to service people other than local residents;
4847
3) Extensive documentation is required of non-residents both
for certification and for the establishment of hardship
deductions under the method of income computation;
4) Specific eligibility and certification requirements vary
from county to county;
5) Food stamp out-reach workers in farming areas and labor
camps are practically non-existent;
6) Office hours vary in different counties and states from a
few hours per week to a few days per month;
7) The vending of stamps may be delegated to banks or other
financial institutions to which the migrants are unfamil-
iar and whose regular hours do not make allowance for the
migrants ' work weeks ;
8) Very limited use of emergency hours during the evening,
week-ends or holidays when migrants are present;
9) Income verification, unless standards are relaxed, for a
worker who has many employers and rarely receives pay stubs
is almost impossible;
10) Resources such as work-related resources - e.g., a car
or a truck - are used to disqualify a person from participa-
tion in food programs ;
11) Residency may still be a cause of inablilty to participate
in food stamps since U.S.D.A. guidelines do not specifically
repudiate this former requirement;
12) There is no formal and effective complaint procedure to
report failure to comply with the stale plan;
4848
13) Certification and eligibility standards make no allow-
ances for persons having no income or an irregular income;
and
14) The practice of selling food stamps only once a month and
not permitting purchase at less than for the full month's
requirements at one time eliminates migrants and others who
have only sporadic resources.
2. Commodity Distribution
Commodity Distribution programs present many of the same bar-
riers to migrants who wish to participate in this type of food program.
Surveys and reports we have studied indicate additional problems such
as:
1) Inconvenient location of food distribution points;
2) A consistent failure on the part of U.S.D.A. to allow
O.E.O. grantees, indigenous groups or others to administer
the programs ;
3) Rigidity in administration of the programs as to dates,
place and time of distribution, as well as places of
certification and recertification - all of which effective-
ly bar migrants from participation in the program;
4) Income certification procedures force migrants to verify
matters not possible whereas a simplified affidavit of
certification' could be substituted;
3) General lack of uniformity in rules and practices relating
to certification due to a vesting of absolute responsibility
for making decisions at the local leval; for example, a
4849
simple delay in certification effectively disqualifies a
migrant whose employment requires him to move on or who
may find interim work;
6) Allowable income and liquid assets vary from county to
county and in some instances seemingly from person to per-
son;
7) County agencies too frequently make no provision for persons
who cannot communicate in English;
8) Transportation is a major problem to migrants who must
travel many miles to a distribution center;*
9) A lack of refrigeration to store perishables prohibits
migrants from participating in the program;
10) Fackaging and supply of household allotment in bulk makes
it difficult for migrants to amnage food;
11) Available food is not consistent with the cultural and
eating practices of migrants, nor is it designed to meet •
the recipients' nutritional needs;
12) Lack of education programs as to value and preparation of
foods available; and
13) Lack of particular foods although listed by U.S.D.A. in
many counties.
III. School Lunch
School lunch programs in stream states also are programmed
* One county welfare director suggested in an interview with M.R.P. stafj
that if the migrant had transportation money to go the 70 miles round-
trip to the center, he had enough money not to qualify for funds.
4850
for resident children and rarely have sufficient funds available to provide
for migrant children who come into the stream states in the spring of the
year. Frequently, migrant children enter an affluent community and en-
roll in a school which had no need for a school lunch program for resident
children. Under current regulations, budgets for school lunch programs
must be geared to a fiscal year basis and not to a quarterly basis which
would allow the school to accommodate the very special and seasonal needs
which accompany the impact of migrants. As a result of this anomaly,
migrant children do without lunch at school or use emergency food money
supplied by O.E.O. so they can eat.
IV. Welfare, and Health
The exclusion of migrants from welfare programs stems most
immediately from the indifferences of local welfare administrators. How-
ever, it also flows from restrictive legislation and budgeting at the
federal and state levels.
Based on income, almost all of the migrants served through
the Migrant Research Project are eligible for welfare. The major reason
they do not receive categorical assistance is because the father resides
with the family. In stream states they are denied general assistance -
even on an emergency basis - because of residency requirements. Even
if a dire emergency exists , most counties choose to provide the cheap-
est, most available public transportation to the home base rather than
providing emergency assistance. This practice seems to hold true even
in localities where the state office will reimburse the county up to
100': of emergency costs at the end of the year.
4851
Health care for migrants is virtually unknown except through
migrant health clinics. The services from the clinics are limited,
however, primarily aimed at immediate minor illnesses and further med-
ical referrals. Limited funds are available for hospitalization in some
areas. Illnesses such as birth defects, drug addiction, alcoholism, mental
health problems are fundamentally ignored by health programs. Moreover,
in counties where funds are available to provide free health care at
state hospitals, welfare directors prefer to save these funds for the use
of permanent residents.
4852
MICHIGAN HOUSING REPORT:
A REPORT OF A STUDY JOINTLY UNDERTAKEN
BY THE MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT AND THE
UNITED MIGRANTS FOR OPPORTUNITY, INC.
The project reported herein was performed
pursuant to a grant from the Office of
Economic Opportunity, Washington, D.C.
The opinions expressed herein are those of
the author and should not be construed as
representing the opinions or policy of any
agency of the United States Government.
Migrant Research Project (M. E.D.I )
1329 - 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
May 8, 1970
4853
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa^e
I. Background 1
II. Methodology of Research
III. Preliminary Observations on Housing Con-
ditions in Michigan Migrant Labor Camps . . 6
Drainage 8
Debris 9
Recreational Area 10
Adequate and Safe Water Supply .... 10
Housing Structures 13
Fire Safety 15
Cooking and Eating Facilities 17
Lighting and Wiring 18
Heating 19
Overcrowding 22
Bathing Facilities 24
Laundry Facilities 25
Toilet Facilities 26
Michigan Employment Security Commission
Study 29
Footnotes 30
APPENDIX A - Federal and State Laws and Regulations
For Agricultural Labor Camps
APPENDIX B - Percentage Tabulations of Questions on
Survey Form
APPENDIX C - Inspection Sheet
4854
MICHIGAN HOUSING STUDY
I. Background
During the summer of 1969, the Migrant Research Project,
with the cooperation of the United Migrants for Opportunity,
Inc . , conducted an intensive survey of migrant housing in the
State of Michigan. Michigan was chosen because of the large
number of migrant workers who enter the state each year in search
of agricultural employment. It is estimated that between 50,000
to 100,000 migrants annually come to Michigan from other states,
primarily Texas, in search of employment. Approximately 3,100
camps, located throughout the State of Michigan, provide housing;
for these workers .
Prior to this study, the public had already been informed |
of the substandard and squalid conditions in which migrants
dwell. The recent hearings conducted by the Senate Subcommittee
on Migratory Labor held in 1969, publicity relating to the grape-
pickers strike led by Cesar Chavez, and numerous books and pub-
lications had all focused attention on the plight of the migrant
laborer.
The purpose of the particular study undertaken by the
Migrant Research Project was to identify and document thoroughly
those aspects of migrant housing which could be improved by more
4855
rigorous enforcement of existing laws and regulations. It was
believed that a major impediment to the provision of improved
housing for the migrant workers was the lack of specific informa-
tion and statistics on one of the most acute problems facing the
migrant worker.
II. Methodology of Research
The UMOI was selected to participate in this cooperative
effort because of its willingness to make available the services
of its staff members and because the organization maintained
offices serving migrants in the parts of the State of Michigan
where migrants most commonly reside. It was believed that a more
balanced geographic distribution could be obtained by making in-
spections in the manner chosen.
An inspection sheet was designed to enable persons, having
little formal education, to report detailed information on hous-
ing conditions in an accurate and objective manner. The questions
were also chosen to provide information revealing the existence
of violations of the State Housing Regulations promulgated and
2
enforced by the Michigan Department of Public Health as well as
3
Federal regulations set by the U.S. Department of Labor. For
the most part, the questions were drawn by simply restating the
4856
Michigan regulations in the form of an interrogatory or question.
A copy of the inspection sheet is attached in Appendix C.
It is initially important to understand the regulations
set by the U.S. Department of Labor governing housing conditions
for migrant workers. The regulations apply in situations where
an employer seeks the assistance of the state employment agency
receiving federal funds (in this case, the Michigan Employment
Security Commission) in the interstate recruitment of agriculture
woods, and related industry workers. These regulations, there-
fore, apply with particular force to migrant workers.
According to the procedures set forth in the Federal regu-
lations, a grower (employer) who solicits the Michigan Employment
Security Commission in recruiting farm workers from outside the
state must state that the labor camp which he operates conforms
to the minimum housing standards. No inspection or other proof
is required at that time, although an inspection of the camp is
required within thirty days prior to arrival of the workers.
If it is found that the grower does not meet the minimum standards
the work order will be cancelled, and the employer will be denied
any further assistance from the state employment agency. This
sanction, however, often involves no more than a futile gesture
since the workers are already in the camp or enroute at the time
4857
of cancellation. Consequently, the enforcement scheme poses no
immediate problem to the operator: he is already guaranteed of
having workers to harvest the current crop and, at the same time,
is not required to make the corrections necessary to bring the
camp into conformity with the minimum standards required by law.
The Federal regulations pertaining to minimum housing
standards set by the U.S. Department of Labor are, as was al-
ready stated, minimum standards. The state, while prevented
from enacting regulations sanctioning any lesser standards, is
not required to set any higher standards. For this reason,
Michigan, as most of the other states receiving federal funds
for their state employment agency, departs very little from the
Federal regulations. Thus, the inspection sheet, by restating
the Michigan regulations in an interrogatory form, permitted an
analysis of violations under both State and Federal law. (A
summary of Federal and state regulations set by the Michigan
Department of Public Health may be found in Appendix A.)
The inspectors who surveyed the camps in Michigan were,
for the most part, employees of the UMOI. They were familiar
with the locations of the camps and the set-up inside. The
actual determination of the camps to be surveyed was not made
by means of a random sample because a list of all the camps was
not available. Nevertheless, the selections were informed
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 22
4858
choices, ones made on the basis of information and knowledge
accumulated by the UMOI staff from their extensive contacts
with the migrant workers throughout the state. It should also
be emphasized, however, that no attempt was made to inspect
only the worst camps, nor could it be said that the most
desperate migrants sought assistance at a UMOI office or that
any such selection process colored the survey. In fact, if
anything, the studies conducted by the UMOI show just the
contrary.
By the end of the summer, 148 camps had been surveyed
representing 23 counties out of a total of 68 counties on the
lower peninsula. In only 45 of these 68 counties, however,
are there a significant number of workers who migrate during
4
the peak summer season. The 148 camps selected housed over
5,000 migrant workers and their families, and varied consider-
ably in size, ranging anywhere between 6 to 261 occupants.
Although this represents only a small percentage of the total
3,100 camps in Michigan (approximately five per cent), it
should be noted that access into the camps is exceedingly diffi-
cult. Operators or the crew leaders are generally hostile to
outsiders seeking to inspect the housing facilities which are
provided for the migrants.
4859
Having established the background and methodology of the study,
it is now possible to proceed into a discussion of some pre-
liminary observations concerning housing conditions in Michigan
migrant labor camps, based on the data which was collected.
Although it is stressed that the comments made herein are only
preliminary, subject to possible further modification, they
are no less based on information that was accurately recorded
and well documented. For these reasons, it is felt that the
credibility of the foregoing observations rests on firm
foundation.
III. Preliminary Observations On
Housing Conditions In
Michigan Migrant Labor Camps
Under the applicable provisions of Michigan law, any
migrant camp housing five or more workers must be licensed by
the Agricultural Labor Camp Unit (ALCU) of the State Department
of Public Health. In order to receive a license, an ACLU in-
spector must first visit the camp and find that it "conforms or
will conform to the minimum standards of construction, health,
sanitation, sewage, water supply, garbage and rubbish disposal",
as well as other applicable provisions from the regulations.
Upon approval and issuance, the camp owner is then required to
4860
display his license in a "conspicuous place" within the camp
area. Despite this clear standard, licenses were observed in
83 or approximately 56 per cent of the survey camps. (In only
67 of these camps was the license actually posted as required.)
As will be seen below, this pattern of wholesale violation of
every elementary licensing requirement is not atypical.
The remainder of the discussion on the preliminary find-
ings will be devoted to a textual discussion of housing con-
ditions in the migrant labor camps by specific areas of concern.
The breakdown will be made under the following categories :
drainage, debris, garbage disposal, recreational facilities,
water supply, housing structures, fire safety, cooking and eat-
ing facilities, lighting and electricity, heating, overcrowding,
bathing and shower facilities, laundry facilities and toilets.
It is believed that the above breakdown is comprehensive and
touches upon most all areas relevant to housing conditions.
In addition to text and the statistics which are to be discussed
below, a table containing the relevant figures upon which the
findings are based is provided in the Appendix. Due to
problems which the inspectors encountered, as discussed earlier,
many of the figures are not based upon the total number of
camps. Reference to Appendix B will, however, disclose the
4861
actual number of camps studied in cases where the specific in-
formation could be obtained.
Drainage
Michigan regulations require that the camp area shall
be well-drained and free from any topographical depressions in
which water may stagnate. Results of the survey showed that
54 per cent of the survey camps were in violation of this
provision. The responses revealed that undrained rainwater, as
well as water collecting from faucets, wells, showers, laundry
tubs, and septic tanks, were the primary sources of the mois-
ture that was observed. Ditches and depressions on the camp
topography further added to the problem of poor drainage.
Although standing water resulting from poor or non-
existent drainage systems might on first impression appear to
be of minor importance, it is a condition which encourages a
large mosquito and insect population. When added to factors
such as poor screening and other unsanitary conditions dis-
cussed below, this problem significantly fosters a major health
problem in the camps.
4862
Debris
51 per cent of the camps inspected were found to have
debris and trash strewn about the camp area. Although the
presence of debris is an admittedly subjective determination
to be made by the inspectors, this finding gains considerable
credence in view of the finding that 30 per cent of the camps
lacked the adequate number of garbage cans as required by the
regulations, while another 53 per cent indicated that the
garbage cans were not properly sealed to protect against in-
sects, rats and vermin.
Several other observations further explain the presence
of the debris observed in most camps. While state regulations
require that garbage be collected at least once a week, only 41
per cent of the camps complied with this requirement. Moreover,
in one- third of the instances where compliance was found, it
was learned that it was the migrant worker who was responsible
for collecting the garbage, rather than the operator or local
sanitation officials.
- 9 -
4863
Recreational Area
The regulations require that "the camp shall include a
space for recreation reasonably related to the size of the
camp and type of occupancy." The results of the Michigan survey
showed that, in 37 per cent of the camps, no recreational area
was provided. This finding takes on significance when consid-
ered in conjunction with the fact that the typical migrant worker
traveling to Michigan brings his family (the average household
6
size being 6.5 members) which includes many young children.
While it is commonly reported that children under age 12 have
been found working in the fields, it is important that when they
are left by themselves, a recreational area is provided in
which they may play.
Adequate and Safe Water Supply
The health regulations require that each camp have "an
adequate and convenient water supply." The Procedural Manual
for Sanitarians, also published by the Department of Public
Health, is more specific in this respect in stating that "cisterns,
springs, ponds or open streams shall not be used as a source of
potable water." Yet, it is significant to point out that in 15
10 -
4864
per cent of the camps, the inspectors found the water to be
"unsafe," because of unusual, often rusty colorations of the
water, unpleasant odors and excessive sediments.
The following table illustrates the extent of illegal
water sources on the camps:
TABLE I:
Illegal Sources of Potable Water
(1) Cistern, spring pond or open
streams 3 camps (27.)
(2) Hand- pump with open top or
open spout wells 47 camps (327.)
(3) Open top wells 8 camps (57.)
Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that, in many
cases, well water was located within 75 feet of unsanitary
facilities in disregard of the provisions set forth in the
Manual. The following table indicates the number of camps where
wells providing drinking water were located too close to the
various unsanitary facilities:
TABLE II:
Camps Where Drinking Well is Located
Within 75 Feet of Unsanitary Facilities
(1) Privy 30 camps (20 7.)*
(2) Septic tank 8 camps (57.)
(3) Till field 5 camps (37.)
(4) Other sewage or waste areas 16 camps (117.)
♦Percentage calculated out of total survey group.
- 11 -
4865
Another indication of the inadequacy of water facili-
ties relates to their accessibility. The regulations require
that a cold water supply be located within 100 feet of each
sleeping facility. Not only were 16 per cent of the camps in
violation of this provision, but in only 17 per cent of in-
stances reported was there a water source piped directly into
the dwellings. Furthermore, where the water was not piped
into the units, it was the migrants' responsibility to carry
the water which, as was already pointed out, could be from
over 100 feet away. Finally, in so far as the sufficiency of
the water is concerned, 18 per cent of the camps were found to
lack enough water to meet the drinking, cooking and washing
needs of the migrant occupants.
The seriousness of the overall violations relating to
water supply cannot be underplayed. The compounding of many
violations in this category including improper and unsanitary
water sources, the often distant proximity of the water supply,
and the insufficiency in the amounts of water available,
presents a rather bleak picture.
- 12
4866
Housing Structures
This category includes both the type of housing provided
in the camps and the structural condition of these units.
Many types of housing units were seen during the course of the
survey, and some camps contained several types of structures.
The following table lists the kinds of units which were found,
as well as the number of camps where these units were seen:
TABLE III:
Types of Housing Units Found Provided
to Migrant Workers and their Families
(1.
i Cabin
(2:
Motel
(3.
) Shed
(4
i Farmhouse
(5.
i Barn or Garage
(6.
i Quonset Hut
(7
) Bus
(8
i Trailer
(9
> Other types
94 camps i
;64%)*
23 camps i
;i6%)
6 camps 1
:«)
2 7 camps i
;i8%)
18 camps
;i2%)
5 camps
;3%)
1 camp
:i%)
5 camps ■
:3%)
7 camps i
.57.)
The above figures do not, however, describe the condition
of the units. Although these figures are, in themselves, most
revealing, additional information contained in the following
*The percentage figures are based on the total survey group.
Since various types of structures may be found on a given camp,
these figures will total over 1007..
13 -
4867
table highlights the extent of disrepair and structural un-
soundness of the houses:
TABLE IV:
Structural Defects in Migrant Housing
(1) Leaky Roofs 43 camps (297.)
(2) Leaky Walls 37 camps (257.)
(3) Rough Floors 58 camps (397.)
(4) Wet Floors 51 camps (347.)
(5) Windows do not close 30 camps (207.)
(6) Faulty Doors 47 camps (327.)
To aggravate matters even further, where structural
problems were found to exist, other data collected shows that
little or no effort is made to make the necessary repairs.
For example, the inspectors reported that broken windows are
not replaced or repaired in 34 per cent of the camps. Further-
more, in the 79 camps which have screens on all of the windows
and doors as the regulations require, only 50 per cent of the
residents indicated that any disrepair or malfunction in this
respect would be rectified.
Once again, these statistics can only be fairly appre-
ciated when considered in conjunction with several figures cited
earlier. The degree of structural unsoundness --particularly
the extent of broken windows, those failing to shut, and the
14
4868
lack of screening on windows and doors--cannot be regarded as
providing protection against mosquitoes, other insects, and
rodents. In view of the debris, puddles of water and other un-
sanitary conditions found to exist in the camp, these structur-
al defects can only contribute to the generally poor health of
migrant laborers, as revealed by other studies indicating that
the medical problems suffered by migrants are far above the
national average. For example, it has been shown that the
incidence of tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases among
migrants is significantly higher than for any other group and
that migrant mortality rate from these diseases was nearly two
and one-half times the national average. It should, therefore,
be emphasized that the statistics, like others presented
throughout this report, have meaning apart from the figures
themselves.
Fire Safety
The Michigan regulations require at least two means of
escape in one-story dwellings. Nevertheless, the survey re-
vealed that only 56 per cent of the camps had met this require-
ment. Furthermore, all camps are required to maintain a means
for extinguishing fires. Once again, the presence of some
- 15 -
4869
form of fire extinguishing equipment was found in only 49 per
cent of the camps. The following chart lists the various types
of fire-fighting equipment that was provided to satisfy this
requirement:
TABLE V:
Types of Fire Extinguishing Equipment
Found on Migrant Camps in the Survey
Camps. (Basis: 72 Camps indicating
that such Equipment was Provided) .
(1) Fire Extinguishers
(common cannister type) 25 camps (35%)*
(2) Hose 36 camps (507.)
(3) Bucket 20 camps (28%)
I
(4) Other types 5 camps (77,)
♦Percentages listed exceed over 1007., as various types of
equipment could be found on a camp.
In spite of the general lack of adequate fire safety
protection in those camps where the equipment is provided, it
is also noteworthy to point out that only 26 per cent of the
camps comply with another regulation requiring that the extin-
guishers be placed within 100 feet of the unit. Had the dwell-
ings been structurally sound and fire-safe, the situation would
not be so acute, but it becomes alarming since most of the units
consisted of easily ignitable wooden structures. The figures
cited below regarding the cooking facilities, types of heating
16
4870
components, and the condition of the lighting and wiring make
the "tinder box" nature of these structures more clear.
Cooking and Eating Facilities
There are several regulations which define the broad cate-
gory of cooking and eating facilities. They require that, when
individual cooking is permitted in the dwelling units, "a cook
stove or hot plate with not less than two burners" shall be
provided. The regulations further require adequate food storage
shelves and counters for preparation; mechanical refrigeration
that will maintain a temperature of not more than 45 degrees
Fahrenheit; and a sufficient number of tables to accommodate
the capacity of the shelter.
The following observations were made with respect to the
above requirements: Cooking was permitted in the individual
units in 128 or in 86 per cent of the camps. In all of these
dwellings a cooks tove was provided. However, 20 per cent of
the camps were without sufficient food storage shelves or work
counters and 31 per cent lacked sufficient tables and chairs to
accommodate the occupants. Another 17 per cent lacked any re-
frigeration whatsoever.
Although these figures might appear a bit confusing,
especially in view of the 100 per cent compliance in providing
- 17
4871
the required cooks toves as contrasted with the deficiencies
in other respects, the reason for this inconsistency becomes
apparent upon the presentation of one additional factor to be
enumerated upon in future discussion -- i.e., overcrowding.
For present purposes, however, it is important to realize that
while the units themselves may contain the required pieces of
equipment, the overcrowding of people into the housing units
renders them generally inadequate to accommodate the large
numbers that actually use the facilities. Although the
licenses specify the maximum number of occupants allowed in
the camp, it is noteworthy that in twenty instances the actual
occupancy exceeded the licensed occupancy. In view of the fact
that licenses were posted or observed in only 83 of the total
survey camps, these twenty camps take on added significance.
Lighting and Wiring
Nearly all of the camps in the Michigan survey were pro-
vided with electricity. Only one camp out of the 148 group
total was not electrified. The regulations, however, go far be-
yond the mere requirement of furnishing electricity. They
specify, for instance, that there must be at least one wall plug
in each room. Eighteen per cent of the camps indicated non-
compliance in this respect. Whereas the yards and pathways,
- 18 -
4872
privies, showers, dining halls and other common facilities
are required to be adequately lighted, 62 per cent recorded
violations of this provision.
Another area of serious concern involves the electrical
wiring provided in dining facilities and in the homes.
Seventeen camps were found to have bare wires in the various
units. Furthermore, in another eighteen camps these wires
were exposed to paper, cardboard and other combustible mater-
ials. In light of the deficiencies in the fire extinguishing
equipment, as well as in the type of housing structures, the
fire hazard which exists in the camps cannot in any way be
understated.
Heating
The regulations require that shelters and commonly
used rooms occupied before May 31 or after September 1 be pro-
vided with heating capable of maintaining a temperature of not
less than 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Although the data presented
below is limited by the sample size -- i.e., most surveys were
conducted during the summer when heat was not required -- there
remains a basis for concluding that the heat furnished was
inadequate.
- 19 -
4873
Migrant labor is used throughout the year on the lower
Michigan peninsula, although peak activity comes in the summer
months. The bulk of the M.R.P. survey inspections were made
during the peak period between June and August. However,
twenty-four inspections were made before May 31, with the
earliest occurring on April 24, 1969. In sixteen of these
twenty-four camps, or two- thirds of them, migrants were present.
Having seen that sizeable numbers of migrants are
present in camps when there is a duty to provide heat, we can
better examine the results of the overall survey which revealed
that nearly 39 per cent of the camps lacked any form of heating
mechanism. In a select group of 70 camps, an attempt was made
to identify the type of heating system provided, and the re-
sults of this effort are presented in the following table:
TABLE VI:
Heating Systems Provided Migrant
Labor Camps. (Basis: 70 camps)
(1) Furnaces 44 camps
(2) Electric Heaters 6 camps
(3) Cookstoves ^ camps
(4) Other 37 camPs
Although earlier figures stated that 128 camps had been
equipped with cookstoves, there may be several reasons to ex-
plain why a total of only 44 camps indicated that the stoves
20
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 23
4874
were also a heating source. Variations in the type of cook-
stove, as well as in room size, may explain why the burners
were not regarded providing sufficient heat. It is also
possible that in some cases, for obvious reasons, the in-
spectors did not consider a cookstove as an adequate heating
system.
Further analysis of the fuels used for heating illus-
trates but another contributing factor to often discussed fire
hazards on the camps. Out of a total of 70 camps (55 per cent)
where heating was provided, the inspectors reported that in
only 15 per cent of those camps did the system appear to be
"safe." Although this figure is open to question for its sub-
jectivity, the following figures on fuel sources help to ex-
plain the inspectors' reports:
TABLE VII:
Fuel Sources for Heating in 70
Camps where Heating, was Provided.
(1) Kerosene 5 camps
(2) Oil 5 camps
(3) Coal 1 camp
(4) Wood 9 camps
(5) Butane 40 camps
(6) Other 31 camps
21 -
4875
Overcrowding
The fact that overcrowded conditions exist in the
camps has been mentioned previously. One reason for this
condition could lie in the fact that in nearly one-fourth of
the camps the number of occupants exceeds the maximum occu-
pancy permitted under the license. The determination of
allowable occupancy is made by the Agricultural Licensing
Camp Unit (ALCU) of the State Department of Public Health on
the basis of square footage of living space available in all
of the dwelling units combined. For example, if a camp had
only two houses, the first having adequate space to house
legally eight persons and the second house could accommodate
only two persons, and if two families each having a household
of five moved into the camp, there would be no violation of
the regulations even though one family of five is living in a
unit which could accommodate only two persons.
The factor of overcrowding is clearly evidenced from
the shortage of available bed space. Table VIII, based on
statistics obtained from 55 camps, shows that in a majority of
instances, more than two persons sleep in a single bed.
22
4876
TABLE VIII:
Average Number of Persons Sleeping
in One Bed. (Basis: 55 Camps)
One to Two Persons 14 camps
Two persons 12 camps
Two to Three Persons 9 camps
Three Persons 9 camps
Four or more Persons 13 camps
Furthermore, in 68 per cent of the camps surveyed, it
was learned that children over six years old are sleeping in
the same room with their parents, contrary to the regulations
which specifically provide that "a family having one or more
children over six years of age shall have a partitioned sleep-
ing area for the husband and the wife." In 34 camps, the
children sleep in the same bed with their parents, while it
is not within the confines of this report to discuss the
psychological ramifications of overcrowding and lack of
privacy, it should suffice to say that these conditions hold
the potential for creating serious problems in the future.
While the figures presented above may already appear
somewhat disconcerting, it should be realized that migrants
regard the opportunity of sleeping in a bed a privilege.
Indeed, in 33 camps in the survey, migrants had nowhere else
to sleep except in their automobiles or on the floors.
23 -
4877
The regulations broadly state that there be "sufficient
bed space consisting of comfortable, rigidly supported beds,
cots or bunks." The array of statistics clearly suggests that
this requirement has not been met by the operators.
Bathing Facilities
The work of the migrant worker is spent largely in the
fields, being exposed to dust, dirt and pesticides, some of
which may be harmful to his health. In spite of this fact, 30
per cent of the camps were found to be without bathing facili-
ties of any sort. In the 94 camps where bathing facilities
were available, only 65 had hot and cold water under pressure.
Additional potential violations were recorded in 24 camps in
this group because the facilities were located over 200 feet
from the dwelling units. More than half of the 94 camps had
less than one shower head for each 15 persons as the regula-
tions shall also require. Furthermore, the inspectors found
that, in a significant number of camps, the facilities were in
an unsanitary condition.
Nearly half of the 94 camps with bathing facilities did
not have sufficient space for dressing and changing, adding
further credence to the factor of overcrowding. Furthermore,
24
4878
as in the case of garbage disposal, it was found that the
migrants were often responsible for making the collection.
In 42 camps where it was possible to gather information on
this subject, 95 per cent of the respondents indicated that
the migrant was charged with the responsibility.
The regulations pertaining to adequate bathing facili-
ties do not go into effect until January 1, 1971, although
they do apply with respect to any camp built after July 1,
1969. Thus, while the information collected fails to show
present violations of the regulations, nonetheless, it does
demonstrate inadequate and unsanitary bathing facilities
presently do exist.
Laundry Facilities
Due to the nature of the migrant's work in the field,
as well as the debris and unsanitary conditions existing in
the camps, their clothing becomes considerably soiled and dirty.
Nevertheless, only 40 per cent of the camps provided a place
to wash clothes. Of this group, only half of the camps were
supplied with hot and cold running water. Many camps lacked an
ample number of tubs, trays or, in a few instances, washers.
Once again, the regulations relating to adequate laundry
facilities do not go into effect until January 1, 1971, except
25
4879
for those camps constructed after June 1, 1969. Although they
will require that laundry facilities be available, that they be
supplied with hot and cold running water under pressure, and
lay down specific ratios governing the number of tubs and trays
per adult occupant, this new regulation has little bearing on
the immediate problem. There is also little reason, based on
past history and experience, to believe that the camp operators
will take voluntary steps to fulfill these requirements ahead of
schedule, especially where there are so many violations in those
areas where the regulations are now in force.
Toilet Facilities
Toilets pose one of the greatest health hazards in the
camp. Only 22 per cent of the survey camps indicated that a
toilet was provided for each of the housing units. In these,
and in the remaining camps, common privy facilities were provided.
The common privy facility is, typically, the outhouse. The regu-
lations specify that where central facilities exist, a toilet or
privy seat shall be provided for each sex in a ratio of at least
one unit for each fifteen adults. A urinal may be substituted
for a toilet seat in the case of male adults. Only 56 per cent
of the camps indicated compliance with this provision.
- 26 -
4880
In approximately one-half of the camps there were no
separate facilities for men and women, also contrary to the regu-
lations. Other violations pertaining to inadequate or unsanitary
toilet facilities under the Public Health regulations are listed
on the following table:
TABLE IX:
Miscellaneous Violations Pertaining
to Toilet Facilities
Violation No. of Camps
(1) Poorly lighted 118 camps (807.)
(2) Inadequately ventilated 102 camps (697.)
(3) Toilet paper and holders
not provided 106 camps (727.)
(4) Privies are not fly tight 93 camps (637.)
(5) Privy closer than 50 feet
to dwelling or cooking
unit 57 camps (397.)
(6) Nearest privy located
over 200 feet from the
living unit 26 camps (187.)
The regulations also require that the toilets be "impervious
and maintained in clean condition." The inspectors found this in
only 35 per cent of the camps . Perhaps a reason for the lack of
cleanliness is due to the failure to annually lime the pits. Only
20 camps indicated that this procedure had been done.
27 -
4881
Once again, these violations should be considered in con-
junction with deficiencies observed in other aspects of migrant
housing. For example, the fact that the privies were not ade-
quately sealed against flies in 93 camps takes on added meaning
in view of the puddles and dampness, the debris and garbage, and
other unsanitary conditions which further encourage the likeli-
hood of large insect populations. When weighed against the
figures on the number of broken windows, windows which fail to
close, faulty doors and lack of screening, this leaves the migrant
with very little protection.
The issue of who is charged with the responsibility for
maintaining the standards set forth in the Public Health regula-
tions has been mentioned several times throughout this discussion.
Once again, the same question was raised as it specifically
related to the cleaning of privy facilities. Out of a total of
79 responding camps, 82 per cent stated that this responsibility
rested with the migrant. Furthermore, in 48 camps where the
question was posed, 58 per cent indicated that the migrants dug
the pits for the outhouses .
28 -
4882
Michigan Employment Security Commission Study
It was learned that of the 148 camps surveyed, 14 of them
were believed to house migrants who had been recruited through
the Michigan Employment Security Commission. The legal significan
of this method of recruitment was discussed earlier. When an em-
ployer seeks the assistance of the State employment agency, the
Federal regulations on minimum housing standards set forth by the
U.S. Department of Labor must be met. Basically, these are exactlj
the same as the state regulations enunciated by the Michigan Depart
ment of Public Health.
It is highly noteworthy to point out that these 14 camps
averaged 13.8 violations per camp, in contrast to 15.3 violations
for the overall survey. This indicates that when the camps come
under the jurisdiction of Federal regulations, the conditions appea
to be somewhat better. Since the standards and enforcement mechani
isms are virtually the same, the better showing of the federally
regulated camps can be attributed to the slightly more effective
sanctions available against growers using the federal system.
- 29 -
4883
Footnotes
The United Migrants For Opportunity, Inc. (UMOI) is a
private non-profit corporation funded by the Office of
Economic Opportunity under Title III-B. The UMOI was
organized to provide a variety of social services to
migratory and seasonal farmworkers in Michigan.
R. 325. 1501-15. These regulations were promulgated by
the Department of Public Health pursuant to Michigan
Compiled Laws, § S 286.621 - 286.633. The Act sets
forth the conditions governing the granting of a license
to an operator of any agricultural labor camp occupied
by five or more workers and their dependents. The
criteria for determining whether or not a license shall
be granted is set forth in the regulations. Any further
reference in the text to either the licensing pro-
visions or the regulations may be found in the above
sections .
20 CFR 602.9(d).
The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States-
1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
made by its Subcommittee on Migratory Labor pursuant ^o
S. Res. 222, p. 120 /Hereinafter cited as 1969 Report/.
The table appearing here lists those counties having
approximately 100 or more seasonal agricultural workers
and family dependents that migrated into Michigan during
1967-68. 20 of the 23 counties in the survey appeared
on the list.
For a more thorough discussion on the issue of access
into migrant labor camps, see Spriggs , '"Access of Visitors
to Labor Camps on Privately Owned Property," 21 U. of
Fla. L. Rev. 295 (1967).
1969 Report, p. 11. This figure is the average household
size for migrant households in Texas, the home base state
for the bulk of Michigan's migrant population.
Migrant Health Program-Current Operational and Additional
Needs, prepared for the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor,
December, 1967, p. 15. This report contains a wealth of
valuable statistics concerning the grave health problems
confronting migrant workers and their dependents.
- 30 -
4884
APPENDIX A
Federal and State Laws and Regulations
For Agricultural Labor Camps
Both the Federal Government and the State of Michigan
have promulgated housing standards to be met by the operators
of agricultural labor camps.
A. Federal Standards
The Federal involvement with migrant workers' hous-
ing problems has been one of long-standing interest and little
action. Recommendations for action have been made by Presidents'
1
Commissions and Interagency Committees since 1946. By 1956,
President Eisenhower's Committee on Migratory Labor had issued
a draft housing code as a guide for State employment agencies,
farmers and civic groups in their efforts to secure voluntary
improvements. Finally, in 1968, compliance with these standards
1
A work group of the Federal Interagency Committee on
Migratory Labor, appointed in 1946, developed a bill granting
authority to state labor commissioners to regulate labor camps,
and suggested language for a labor camp code. The President's'
Commission on Migratory Labor, appointed in 1950, made recom-
mendations in 1951 for improvement of housing and other conditions
of migratory farm labor. "Housing for Migrant Agricultural
Workers: Labor Camp Standards," Bulletin 235, United States De-
partment of Labor (November 1962), p. 3.
2
Id. at 3-4.
4885
was made a condition of access to the interstate recruitment
facilities of the United States Training and Employment Service
3
(USTES).
The actual standards are considered minimal, and are so
designated in the language of the regulations. They are applied
to deny interstate recruitment only to growers in states whose
4
codes are less stringent. They are, for the most part, sup-
planted by Michigan's regulations, which are comparable and, in
5
a few instances, more stringent.
To appreciate the impact of the Federal policy, it is
necessary to review the procedures for interstate recruitment.
Early each year growers apply to offices of the Michigan Employ-
ment Security Commission (MESC) for work orders, specifying the
20 CFR § 602.9, 620.1, et se£. USTES is the successor
to the former Bureau of Employment Security of the Manpower
Administration of the Department of Labor.
4 20 CFR § 620.1(b).
Michigan regulations are published in booklet form, and
may be obtained from the Michigan Department of Public Health,
Agricultural Labor Camp Unit, Division of Engineering. The
Federal and Michigan standards vary in their detailed specifica-
tions for certain items. In some instances, the Federal standards
are more stringent; for example, the Federal minimum standard for
the dimensions of windows to be available as fire exits specifies
a larger window than the Michigan Rule. Compare Rule 325.1508
with 20 CFR § 620.17. Our conversations with USTES officials in
Washington confirm that USTES policy is that both sets of regula-
tions are to be used by inspectors, who are directed to apply the
stricter standard for each item.
4886
type of work and the number of workers required, and certifying
that the housing provided is in compliance with the regulations.
Most of these orders are placed during the first four months of
the year. Once approved, the orders are forwarded to the cen-
tral State office of the MESC in Detroit, and from there to the
corresponding offices in the "supply States." No order may be
cleared by a local office until a housing form has been signed
by an authorized inspector and by an MESC official approving
the inspection. Variances may be obtained only from the USTES
Regional Administrator in Chicago, only where livable space
would otherwise be wasted and "appropriate alternative measures
have been taken to protect the health and safety of the
employee. ..."
The conditions, more fully stated, are that the "extent
of the variation is clearly specified," and that the Regional
Administrator is satisfied that:
"... (1) such variation is necessary to
obtain a beneficial use of an existing facility,
(2) the variation is necessary to prevent
a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship,
and (3) appropriate alternative measures have
been taken to protect the health and safety of
the employee and assure that the purpose of
the provisions from which variation is sought
will be observed." 20 CFR § 620.3(a).
- 3
4887
In practice, the Federal policy is not effectuated. Local
MESC officials make some inspections on their own, but usually
rely on the work of State and local inspectors. USTES approval
of an inspection involves no more than a cursory review, based on
7
the inspector's own statement of his findings. The USTES Regional
Administrator may grant a variance without requiring a statement
of the 'alternative measures" promised by the camp operator, as is
required. No very systematic effort is made to see that these
promises are kept. If facilities are not maintained during the
season, there are no effective penalties levied against camp
operators. If a violation is reported, the MESC may cancel an
employer's work order; but by the time this has occurred, the work
has been advertised for some time, and needy workers are likely
to arrive despite the cancellation.
The initial inspection, then, almost entirely determines
the efficacy of the Federal policy, and the Federal officials
here readily delegate their duties.
Prior to 1970, MESC officials relied exclusively on the
work of inspectors employed by the Michigan Department of Public
Health or county and local agencies. This year, until mid-April,
MESC officials accompanied Michigan inspectors pursuant to a
USTES effort to secure better enforcement of the housing standards,
This practice has been discontinued; however, MESC officials will
make spot-checks on camps housing workers recruited through USTES
facilities.
4888
B. Michigan Standards
All of Michigan's migrant labor camps are governed by
the general provisions of Public Act 289 of 1965, and by the
regulations promulgated in 1969 by the Department of Public Health
These regulations, as noted, also constitute the standard of eli-
gibility for Federal recruitment.
Each camp must be inspected annually, and a permanent or
temporary license is granted upon a finding that a camp and its
"proposed operation . . . conforms or will conform" to the 'minimu
8
standards" set forth in the rules.
Licenses may be suspended or revoked when violations are
9
discovered. For several reasons, revocation procedures afford
no real protection to the workers. First, most camps are inspecte
only once a year, before the season of occupancy. This casts the
burden upon the workers to complain of deficiencies not apparent
to an inspector visiting an empty camp, or deteriorations related
to occupancy which are, nonetheless, the legal responsibility of
10
the camp operator. Many workers simply do not know the procedur
8
Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.624.
9 Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.627.
*-Q Rule 325.1505 assigns responsibilities to camp operators
and occupants. The division is not as sharp as it may appear at
first, as may be seen by reading several of the rules, together
with this one.
4889
for complaining. Most of them are Mexican -Americans , unable to
read the licenses posted in the camps, which are in English.
Being away from their own homes, the workers cannot take the pro-
prietary attitude toward local governmental institutions that
resident citizens have. They also fear, for good reason, that
seeking redress through local law enforcement or public health
officials will cost them their jobs.
Again, where a complaint is made, the camp operator may
demand a hearing with ten days' notice, and may appeal an adverse
ruling to the courts. Since the workers stay in one place only
for a period of weeks, sub-standard conditions may well persist
11
until the work is finished and the workers move on.
Finally, it would seldom be in the workers' interest to
have a camp closed in mid-season, since it would burden them with
finding new housing and, often, new employment.
Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.627. Section 286.632 now
authorizes the State Health Commissioner, through the Attorney
General, to sue for injunctions against the operation of camps
whose licenses have been revoked or suspended. House Bill 4362,
pending at this writing in the Michigan legislature, would allow
such actions to be brought, without the assistance of the Attorney
General, against camp operators who have never been licensed, as
well as those who have lost their licenses. The proposal, clearly
a worthy one, does not address the key problem of delay.
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 24
4890
The basic legislation provides that violation of its pro-
12
visions, or of the regulations, is a misdemeanor. Still, al-
though statistics are not now available, the experience of people
active in the field of farm workers' problems is that prosecutions
are rarely brought, and that convictions rarely result in the sort|
of sentence that could deter future violations. A recalcitrant
operator would find it far cheaper to pay fines, even year after
13
year, than to make the needed improvements in his housing.
The remaining available remedy would involve greater reli- f
ance on civil actions for damages or injunctive relief against the
camp operators. However, migrants cannot afford the legal fees,
nor can they remain for the duration of the litigation without
foregoing needed employment at other areas. Similarly, they could!
not return as witnesses in such litigation from their distant
homes during periods when they have little income.
Thus, Michigan's policy, like that of the Federal system,
must rely almost totally upon the stringency of the inspections in|
order to effectively enforce the housing regulations.
12 Michigan Compiled Laws § 286.633.
13
In a 1968 case in Grand Traverse County, a grower was
fined $35.00 for operating a camp without a license. In Antrim
County, a grower who pleaded guilty on two counts was fined $75.00
and sentenced to 90 days in jail, but the jail sentence was sus-
pended. Not surprisingly, there appear to be no cases in which
growers have actually served time for violations, however egregious
u g
o co
4891
50
c
•^
w
'4-1
XJ
a
o
B
5
0
cO
S-S
a.cj
(0
0
ad
* * *m
<r i*i h
vD i-l <J
«*
--I
a
vO
^O
14
-J
C-J
Q)
U]
111
l-i
CO
■U
0)
0)
tO
c££
CO 00
<4-l C
1-1 o-
<u > 3
Q ^h o Han
-a
01 c
01
3
■WH 5
-a
01 41
til
k
£
O
« 0) CO
V
x: c
01
u
'-O
OS 3 b
4-1
O"
<u
U -i-l
•I-l
•u
03
V
M
to-
-^ (0
CO
c
O
4)
<d
la U
cd u
3
o
J3
4892
oo
c
•rl CO
y-i
•u a
0
c e
O CO
AO
co
<u
at
******
6~! 8~* B-S 5*S g-S B-S
H N N -J-
* * *
5-S ^S 5-S fri
MNC1J
conh
^ « a
one
. 3 *
*-! H O
r-l ^NtljMO
Ovinciio is ^
jz a.
CO CO >-. -H
co s-i >-i iJ a
c
3 «t) «£ e
o
J3 3 c r-t y -h
•H
to O 3 -i-l J-> CO
CO
a --o J H Q a
0)
3
o
25
0) <4-l
co e>-
0) 0)
£ o
c
c -a
X! J-»
•u
•r-i
c—
co at
U o
U
CO
o u
a
01 CD
en
a)
V
CO r-l
fc -O
c
Vj
<u >
•H ,-1
H J) IJ u < U
3 n
0) .y
01 01
3 0)
3
01 Jd cj Oi co -
l-i cu i-l o co C
&% £5 33
w
01
w
c
o
a,
c
00
o
0)
•z. a
60
c
•f<
M
«-l "O
a
O C
E
O
n3
R-S A U
ca
01
peS
4893
ao
c
•i-( U]
IH
•a a
O
c e
O CO
s~?
a. u
CO
0)
a!
O cfl
B-S H O
M
M
4)
4>
>
a
O
o q
u oo
■ a
C
vi e
ed <-<
0) -a
U «
3 -^
60 o
o at
SS
U i-l
CJ IM
C "O to
01 CO 4) 41
H .-I 41 U
< P. 3 CO
a
<>•
O-
(0
E
n)
Ol
o
u
0)
Ol
£ £
4) 60 60
■>
4J C C
60
00
flrl-HC-
c
.5
»^£ a
0)
•H
c a e
>H
^
>J
j: -h to «o
<fl
c
a.
aO u 3 o
W
•H
w
3 TJ
u
o "O at
l-l
■a
C 0) C -G
0J
E
41 J3 CO U
■U
MH
u
CO
c^-
0
0)
4) - u-t
3 ^
u
HJ too
C
CO
CO
41 4) C
tt)
•H
4)
■H
jC 41 i-l CO
j=
u
o
1-1
U
U g^T)
aj
-o
Ij
01
O 4)
3
u
CO O O 4)
Ul
0
0
(0
«
M u o C
M
u
CO
3
' —
w
0
in
C
0
1
a
c
<n
o
01
2 OS
4894
S-S B-S S-S
vO -J vO
r>. ctv o>
vO 0> r-t
so r— oo
00
c
•H 0)
IM
•a a
O
c e
o eg
s-S
a. o
(0
a>
as
u e
O 01
H O
•a c c
c 01 0)
« a. o.
X o o
r-l 0) l-» 4J 41 4) U
0) 3 .* 004J C
60-W O fl) r-l 3 C[)
O. C J2 U«ltl3 00<-l
O -H 4J >>, -r4 CO C->-l
4J j{ »l fi •• O 1-1 "O -H O
C 3 « 00 >>-^ M -rl C W
C -rl C > J-» r-l 0) 3 -rJ
o) v*,o<«'i-i'HO-r-(j3tr(do)
a. •o«03m«^u-hI(£
O 4-1 OhHHO'Ht) u
«1 Cfl 4J r-l
^\ O 0) r-l /-\/-\/~»^
U COOOIOCO.ao'O
s i
4J H "O
H Q.
■rl <*■< r-l
0) J3 O
0) C
§ u O
4J o 0>
> 3
HI fl o.
cfl o
0)
3 0)
£
00 0) 4J
0)
u
S"W CO
MO H
CO i-l
•H 01
C u 0)
•3c£
VI 01
r^ O W
0) X,
r^ O O
C -h 3
X, *J
fl) H p4
r-.
C
rl
3 O
H
313 01
c^«
O X
•o c
01
U 0) O
0)
3 rl
tfl 01
u
Q. (0
>
S
U3 -C -C
<fl
CO -fl r-l
•H
S3
HUM
3
M Q. Q.r-1
a q
Z A,
w
4895
to
a)
g
3
4J
c
U
0
3
•w
H
u
ii
en
c/j
4)
3
w
O
c
•H
M
3
0
s
oo
■5-S
en o>
3 -O
O •*
J2 >
oo>£u«MhOnidj:
caofiacd 3 3 >i *j
oa (ouxcnCbttO'cQHO
Q.1-1 /-\ ^~N /~V ^\ ^-» /-\ /-\ /-» /->
>-. G «J3 CJ T> 0) M-l O0.C -H
H 3 ww n^ w w v-* >w s^ v-»
M
efl
i-i
>M U «
3
44
o -h j:
c *J
V
V
C 3
X!
J3
O (0
4J
U
tI M«
e—
4J C 0
T-l •.-! Q
c^»
a
C^'
0) JS
M 4J
•a »
M
.*
O
C 3 /-n
cO
CO
/-s O
0 O «J
a>
J3
o>
o G
O X ^
l-l
>-^
.-I
•>-' 01
o
cil to
01 c>»
r-l
3 0)
jC 01
<4-l
r-t
u o)
at u
o
<u
£.
.-1 r-l
£,
t> >,
r^ y
4J c>.
i-l
CO
U
C -rl
(0
sg
CO en
U cfl
So
0)
"0
/■»» 4J
m -5
•o <1)
01 (1)
— ' 60
--'JO
W J
4896
cm co a
o u e
O co
?-« H O
2 A.
W
Hi
PLl
00
<
c
•H 0)
cm -a a
o c e
?
* * * *
«-? 5"* S-S S-S
m o oo r>»
00
•5
co
B
co
s-s s~s ^s &^
Is* <* -4- CI
co
0)
c o
at co
^ 1-1 C-.
O O.T3
m a) <u
x> u u
o
■H
CD CO
M S
n)
■u
< o
(V
0)
•o
h
m
<-» c
3
00 -H
w
O
w 3
0
(0
U "D
o a)
o c
•o a)
a
« o
jc
4J -O
e
o> ttj e»
•3 T3 H
i-l -M
<-s^-l 10
-C O CO
v-/ 01 0)
c
CO
0) o-
C •»
O. CO
0) c
0 u
01 O
o
M -H
.-1 o
O w
a)
r-l T3
CO i-l
m
cd
T3
0)
•o
01 C
£
c c
JS O
u
O ctj
U (J
o>
(0 CO
0) -O
<
C 5
01 o
0) T3
00
^
H C
^^
n-' CO »
>
co
<u
£
M
•H
CD
CH
4J
•H
cn
S
u
CO
.-1
CO
c-
f-H
01
co
CO
I-l
•u
CM
u-| vO
o
CO
I-.
CM
ro
CN
•o
>>
01
(0 c-
i
u
9 co
O
CO
CO
01
M M
H
F-l
CO U
co a.
0)
3
S
JC
J2
o
0) <M
3 co
CO
rH
H
i-l
•I-l
CO
■ • 0) W
3
O
<j j: a
O «
oo
4J
c « o
CO C
c
0)
H
CO
0)
0)
•r^
0) jrf
01
0)
S CO M
cm B ••
•U
GO
o
£
00
O.M 3
M 0.-0
X
o
3
u
CO
•w a
i-l 0)
Cd
s
CO
O
4J
3 >~n
ss. 3 TS
e
cr co o
js cri-i
4)
H ^" «
d oi >
O
4897
41
O to
U O 3
C nH O
01 X
B C
<H £ O
3 4J Cd
tr-H 4)
4) 3
■r-l
4)
•a o
u
x:
4)
03
u
cj u
41
CO 4)
a
u>
r-l 4)
o
M
o-y-i
co 4) 3
h J O
4) O JZ
.C co
•r-l 4)
3 C
.. 4J CN
50 CO
C .* 4->
•rH O CO
O CJ 4)
< >*-l O 3 < >
k -h o cd -u
U T3
00 o
■H g
4J c
co C
C J->
o tj ca
cd o
cd
i-i cd
•w c m
3 •<-<
TJ
en
.* n
CM «
tr u
O co
U
(J 4)
<4-l 4)
4) cd
0 4)
4)
O 60
3 in*
•o f-1
Eh >
U
S -H
co gj u
cd ft
r-l
§
n
r-i
4J
^. 41
^m
/-N.O n
/-% C
.O JC
0
y 41
•a « o
41 4)
4898
O i-l <0
T* 3
U TD O
u CD X
O XI
« en a) ««-
r^ 1-1 X 01
HI
73 01
•i-l 5^
> CO
O 3
U X .
CO
u co
x -o
o) co g
•^ X o
> o
•i-l 60 <>•
._ U C U CO
r-l >s O. -i-l cu CO
C x <u
01 c O tH U U
M i-l tt T3 O CO
<U ol
l-i <u
CO >-i
X -.-I
3
CU
»J r-l
CU CO
X O
U -i-l
u
4) i-i
n o
< <U
0) •> C O -rl
X !-i W S-i <U <M O
i-i 01 0) 3 X i-l
Q.X X *-> >> U
CD to i-i CO i-J
ij a. o i-i o: a. (j
< cfl 0) 4)
O H X O O r-l
^-v u o f Qua)
Ul
OJ
en
C
o
1
u
c
c/1
n
(1)
^
erf
4899
* * * *
g-S g*S g*S 5*S
CI <y\ <£> r<->
•X * * * * *
pinriio
ui u-| r- 1 (^ O i— I
O w
H 3
D. O
00
C 4)
U u
UH W OH 3U
H 3 o W tu O
(1)
(>•
J3
01
IH
4)
01
J3
01
tJ
F=
CO
0)
E
01
01
u
c
01
0)
<U
>,
Ul
C
U
10
o
^-1
■3
0)
0)
M
H
nj
O
4-1
x;
■rt 3 -w
iDnmuiijju^o'H
<D .C M <D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ '-'
s5«£
co
QJ
w
c
0
1
a
c
co
o
0)
Z OS
oo
c
•H 0)
IH
xi a
o
C G
o «
£"!
AO
(0
(1)
aS
4900
*****
5~S S-S g^ B-S 5-S
tri CM VO *X> <t
CM CM i-l i-l CM
O 00 \0 ^O ON
<f cm o~\ o\ co
to
C
n
V
•■-1
•h
1-1
o
a>
cd
l-l
O-Xi
O.C-
•H
VJ
a>
4-1
41 CO
C
e
a>
0)
41 4-i
CM t4
<o
>
.-I
CO
r-l C
O
CM
o
CO
flj
CO 41
00
n c
H
c
C
E
e «
41 T-1
o
D
0)
o
o a.
xi a.
14-1
)-l
tl
o
u
e 4i ••
XI
Xi
u
■o u
3 41 XI
CO
.— 1
--I
i-l v-l
C i-l 41
01
V
•r-l
•r-l
4>
c^-
•i-l 01
CO XI
c
CO
JC
x:
e
CO
XI Xi
4>
•i-i
3
O
o
a)
u
CJ 4J
00 41 4"
XI
O
CO
C
Cfl l-l l-l
3
Xi
x:
u
01
*J X!
u a. t*
o
u
co
4>
l-l
CO 4-1
tt> o c
M
C
•r4
3 xi
cfl
3 -H
> 41 t4
a
H
3
B
u
a
2 3
< a. co
u
CD
>
«tf
u-i
vO
o
CO
CO
CO
XI XI XI XI 4)
4) 41 l-l
H XI U Xi Q
4i 41 e
a u a. m
0) 41 U
CM Cuco Cu O
I I
i-inn n-*
r-l
IM
CO
a.
u
o
C
n)
CD
0
o
0,
a.
c
4-1
CJ
•r4
CO
41
3
r-l
Vj
X
CO
o
co
0>
</>
c
o
1
a
c
DO
0
CD
z ei
4901
c e
O CO
0.0
u x; -a
>-h oi 3
■H- >
y an
4-1 T3 4J
4) >, cfl
O0T3 (U 3
c
C -H J3
o
•i-l > 4J -o
•H
J3 O r-l
u
U h O 0
CO
4)
■O
3
0) /-N-O
Oi
M-l H etf c
M D^K
1 41
u oo
rl
CO
*-» C
C
O U
CO
2 c
o
01 01
CO 01
o
u
T3
3 -h
•r< n
u e
a. a)
CO
O (0 CO
CO
4-1 cd
<o o
X)
a
XI
01
<v*
£ i-i co
H
•1-1
a. 3
01
•i-i
(I) 4J
-C
•u
CO 0'
o
C--
i-l co
OJ
4J
J3
M
G
- u
H e^.
0
a
•H U
CO T3
CO
4J jz
0) 01
4-1
co
i-l "O TJ
0 -o
4-1
o
O 01
B
r-l
"£ °
u
o
0,
CO 01
4-i 01
CO
4 3
Oi co
3
3 m
CO 0)
3
I-i CO 0)
•o
u
4-1 O
M
CJ
o>
U J3
M
CJ
■U p 4J
2 *•
01
1-1
£
01 C
i-l
>%
01 4J
4)
o
C CO
^ >
1-1
CO
01 CO
-C 01
CO
0) 4-1
»
£t
o
01 co 3
2 o
0)
u
u 6
CJ
x: o
O 01
O'rl C
2 u
4
o
cO i-(
u
X n
4J
01
.c p,
4J
u
i-i a)
01 M-
CO
4J
to co
C
1-1
cO OOTJ
CO 14
n 0
01
(U oi
9
C cO
01 CO
4)
CO
a. 4J
(0 4-1
00
u oi
*>•
IM -
■o
■u
4-1 i-l
cv
l-i 0)
H
41
0) c
cfl
<j 4-1
4>
H x>
01
«
M -O 01
0J
<: j=
< J=
C/J 01
> 0)
4-1
CO
01
>-i
r-4 U
CJ
<j
CJ
O
T3 CO
q
--NO
3
^-vT3
•i-i
l-i
/N-H «
CO
^N O
c
01 01
4)
o o
o
•a -h
3
01
0) 3 JS
a
<4-l i-l
00 01
J3 4-1
CO M
CJ
n-'CM
J3
V >
cr
B.
s-^jO *->
CO
w y
w
1?
M
3 CO
H
01
4>
01
C
o
1
a
c
</>
o
0)
■z.
aJ
01
0)
01
c
o
I
a
C
oi
0
4)
Z a!
00
c
•i-l oi
tu
XI J.
o
c e
O to
S~S
O.CJ
to
o>
aS
4902
tt
01 01
0)
a. a.
-C ••
to «
■U 01
e
o u
01 O 05
c
COt)
«* «N
o
cd M C
01
CJ\ <t
•w
01 <d
M
•u
Hh h
01
e e
U)
y 01 t>0
o o
4)
3 2j
a
0 0 2
XI X"
o^
11
01 0)
0) (0
<d at
d
-*
:?
0) XI
•H «
•H c
<4-l 01
O 4J ed e"
<U £
*J -H M
3 3 c«
^ u a)
01 i-> 01
0) -i-l o w
M
O O £ cd
cd w o>
01
ed «d 3
O J3
a,
r*e- <u £
01 01
g
a, oi u oo
p M ed
01 0) "rt C
cd H £ 3 -H
0) 01 3
o
•£ -2
4J U C
4J B XI
CTN
01 O X> g
U r-l 4) 4) 3
3 c
m
«gC«d
tluh'Dh
c
jc ■< -h
■ AJ CO
0
4J J3 > X)
c ►>
»«OH
/-* 01 ed
XI
til <d cd h o
J3 •* Vi
01
m 3 >^ a o
v- ' (J 4-1
0]
01
c
o
>
0)
a
td
•H
c---
5-S~
o
to
0) C"
•H
rH
** c
>% u
<4-l
<d
cd 0)
J 4J-H
>w -c
•5
u e
cd -H
3 co
cd o
oi 3
M
a.3
<H
D
0)
1*4 O oo
cd *n
CO XI
x»S
Vl
c
4) <M
o
4) Cd
3 §3
U o
u
0)
to
01 c
4) 0 0
£ u
u
fig
£
u oi
4)
CO 0)
A
r-l
41 U 41
■31
fl
oi u
s-^-s
o
u o
c
u
<•«
(f>
01
tn
C
o
a
c
U)
0
01
2
cc:
en
0)
Ul
C
0
I
a
c
w
0
01
■z
ai
4903
c e
o <d
* * *
w e
o tfl
H CJ
0J
a
<o
■H 4J
^ V
e^.
3
»
o-
> X
> oj
4-1
n -o
•H 60
•H U-l
•H
0)
DO
01 01
n -^
14
c
u
4-1
0.-0
Q.4J
Q.O
p
ai
V
(0 i-l
U1
»-(
i-l
a. >
OJ >»
>,
00
i-l
1-1 C"
o
fc .-I
C C
C
0
O 73
■U H
CO '-W
cd eg
•H
4J
4J oj
a) a.
jS
W
o-
«j
.-i
0) >,
01 4J
3
OJ T3
01 <0
•h ca
I-l 0)
h
O
£ 01
£ r-l
o u
4) £
01 l-l
x:
4J u
4J -r-l
4J OJ
jr 4J
Si 01
A
4.)
•o
u
4-> (0
CO
oj ao
01 C
01 r-l
a)
O
< > < X!
c o
0)
3
rH
4J
•r4
oo oj
O
C 0)
4-1
•H >4-l
>
u
•H o
01
.-1 o
0)
CM
l-i
r-(
CO
-4 C
01
Q i-l
c
x;
OJ 4-1
41
W -"I
X
< »
4J
01
01
c
01
C
•H
CO
i-i
c
CO
>
u
Ol
0
01
•H
ati
!-H
h
•W
0
o
o-S
o
z
O T3
^
^
^~.
£
c
CO
x>
o
CO
v~'
— '
*— '
4904
c
0
a
o)
o
4)
z as
od
C
■r-l
01
y-i
■v
A
o
c
1
* *
?4 if*
O O
s-s s< s< 8-S 6-* t>s
O ^J CO 00 00 CM
.-I CM CM r-l r-l
a ,
01 Q.
3
01 0)
01
03
r-(
f-l CD
c
i
CO
to
0)
CO
<d
4J
4J 4J
•C
4-1
o
•H f>.
•nl O
4-1
c w
Q. U
a. o
CO r-l
CO
CO
IM
01
U (U
<r
01 4)
0)
00
60 C
J2 >>
J= -H
ft
•H 5
c
u
■C
01 cj
4J
c
a) crj
"O
£ O
0
o
/-V/-S
T3
u <o
u si
£
CO -O
0>
< 0)
< «
V^>S-/
0)
0) 3
«
«T) rl
V
H -H o
!>s
0) CO 41
>%
» *-> H
c
H jC
3
tfl
01 o
CO o o
a
iw r-i cd
u -5
e
4) a) 4)
0i 6 3
o
•rl a)
.* O
o
£ J3 CO
UK"
P
0*£n
O >*-l 0)
4)
4)
3 «
CJ
60 4J
3 4) 3 a)
•O tfl
co
V4
•rH
si d 4J s:
41 01 4-1
£O<0
f>.
S3
3
U U CD 4J
UhcdO
•U 1-1
e
u
3 4)
4)
01
«-4 u j:
J2
fl
-O
u
UTJ «<rl
H u U U v^ ^-*
4905
APPENDIX C
Inspection Sheet
Please answer as many questions as possible.
Inspector's Name
Date Inspected
Inspector's Phone Number
Name of Camp
Location of camp:
Be as specific as possible
so a stranger could find it.
County
Owner s Name
Nearest Town
Nearest Street Name
and Number
Direction and Dis-
tance from nearest
town
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
1. Are farm workers living in the camp now?
2. Did you see the license or permit for the camp?
(a) Is it posted for all to see in the camp:
(b) How many people does the license say can
live in the camp?
(c) What is the license number of the camp?
(d) How many people do you think can live in
the camp?
3. How many people in this camp are 12 years or older?_
How many people are under 12 years old?
7R - . 0^
4906
CAMP AREA
Is the Camp well drained? (That is, free from
swampy areas where mosquitoes can breed.) Yes No
When it is not raining, is there water or wet
areas on the ground? Yes No
Is Yes, is this from: (make check marks)
rain ( )
the well ( )
water faucets ( )
dish water ( )
septic tank ( )
showers ( )
laundry ( )
toilets ( )
ditch ( )
drain pipe ( )
6. Is there junk or trash in the camp area? Yes No
7. Number of garbage cans in the camp area?
(a) Are they tightly covered? Yes No
(b) How often is garbage collected: (check one)
twice a week? ( ) once a week? ( )
ire than twice a week? ( )
less than once a week?
don ' t know ( )
8. Who collects the garbage ?_
9. Are there poisonous plants or poisonous weeds
in the camp area?
10. Is there a play area?
WATER SUPPLY
Yes
Yes
No
No
11. Is there enough water to meet the drinking, cooking,
and washing needs in the camp? Yes
12
Is the water safe to drink?
If No, why don't you think so_
Yes
No
No
13. Does drinking water come from any of the following
(a) cistern, spring, pond or open stream? Yes No
(b) hand pump with open top or open spout? Yes No
(c) open top well? Yes No
- 2
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
4907
14. Is any well located within 75 feet of any of the
following:
(a) privy?
(b) septic tank?
(c) tile field?
(d) other sewage or liquid waste draining into
the soil? Yes No
15. Is any home more than 100 feet from the closest cold
water? Yes No
If Yes, how far is it?
16. Is running water piped into each place where people
live? Yes No
17. Do workers have to carry their own water? Yes No
HOUS ING
18. Type (s) of housing units provided:
Number of separate Approximate outside mea-
Type structures surement of each unit
Cabin (small house)
Motel
Number of separate
living Units
Shed
Farm House
Number of rooms
Barn or garage
Quonset (metal) hut
Chicken House
Bus
Trailer
Other (please explain
3 -
4908
19. (a) Does the roof leak? Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
(a)
Does the roof leak?
(b)
Do
the walls leak?
(c)
Is
the floor safe?
(d)
Is
the floor smooth?
(e)
Do
the floors get wet?
If yes, where does the water come from?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
' Yes-
No
Yes
No
(f) Can the walls be easily cleaned?
(g) Do all windows close?
(h) Are broken windows replaced or repaired?
(i) Are doors solid and do they open easily?
(j) Are there screens on all windows and open doors?
(k) Are they fixed?
(1) Other problems you saw:
20. Do all units have at least two ways to get out in
case of fire?
(One may be a window big enough to crawl through- -
24x24 inches and not more than 2>\ feet from the
floor.) Yes No
21. Is there a way to put out fires?
(a) How?
(1) fire extinguishers ( ) (3) bucket ( )
(2) hose ( ) (4) other ( )
explain
(b) Are they kept for this reason within 100 feet of
each house? Yes No
22. Is the worker or family allowed to cook and eat in
his house? Yes No
If Yes, are the following provided:
(a) Cookstove with at least 2 burners?
(b) Food storage shelves and work counter?
(c) Working refrigerator?
(d) Enough tables and chairs for the family?
(e) Adequate ventilation?
23. Is electricity furnished in all the homes?
24. Is there at least one wall plug in each room?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
- 4
4909
25. Is lighting provided for yard pathways to privies,
showers, dining hall, etc.?
26. Are there bare electrical wires?
Are they exposed to paper, cardboard, or other
materials that burn easily?
Does family have to pay electricity?
If Yes, is there a light meter?
27. Is there a place for hanging and storing clothes in
each home? Which? (check)
(1) closets ( )
(2) ropes in living area ( )
(3) pipe ( )
(4) hooks ( )
(5) other
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
!8. In houses for families with children over 6 years old,
must children sleep in the same room as their parents? Yes
Average number of people per bed.
No
29. Do people have to sleep on the floor or in cars? Yes No
Must children sleep with their parents? Yes No
Average number of people per bed
HEATING
30. How are the houses heated?
(a) cooks tove ( )
(b) electric heater ( )
(c) furnace ( )
(d) open fire ( )
(e) nothing ( )
(f) other ( )
31.
When do workers arrive in camp?_
When do they leave?
32. Is the heating system safe?
If No, why don't you think so?
Yes
No
(a) Kind of fuel used:
kerosene ( ) charcoal ( )
oil ( ) wood ( )
coal ( ) butane gas ( )
paper ( )
cooking stove
other ( )
( )
BATHING AND LAUNDRY
33. Are bathing facilities provided? (only showers, bath
tubs, or large metal tubs are acceptable)
Yes
No
5 -
4910
34. If bathing facilities are provided:
(a) Do they have hot and cold water under pressure?
(b) Are they clean and sanitary?
(c) Are they within 200 feet of each house?
If No, how far must people living in the
farthest house walk to get to them?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
(d) If showers are provided, how many shower heads
are there?
(e) If central shower buildings are used, is there
adequate space for dressing?
(f) Are there hooks for clothes?
(g) Are there stools or benches to sit on?
(h) If central shower buildings are used, are there
separate shower rooms for men and women? Yes No
(i) Who cleans the shower room? Migrants ( )
Paid Migrants ( ) Owner ( )
35. Is there a place to wash clothes? Yes No
Does it have hot and cold running water? Yes No
How many wash tubs are there?
How many laundry trays are there?
How many working mechanical washers are there?
TOILETS
36. Does each family have their own toilet? Yes No
37. If toilets are shares:
(a) Number of privy seats
(b) Number of flush toilets
(c) Are there separate toilets for men and women?
(d) Number of Urinals
38. Are toilets well lighted?
39. Are toilets well ventilated?
40. Are toilet paper and holders provided?
41. If there are privies, are the pits fly tight?
42. Is any privy closer than 50 feet to any house?
If Yes, how far is it to the nearest toilet?
43. Are all living units within 200 feet of the nearest
toilet? Yes No
If No, how far is it to the nearest toilet?
6 -
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
'No
Yes
No
4911
44. Are toilets and privies clean? Yes No
45. Who cleans them? Migrants ( ) Paid Migrants ( )
Owner ( )
46. Are pits limed each year? Yes No
47. How deep is the pit?
48. Who digs new pits?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
49. If the workers are from out of state, how were they recruited?
State Employment agency ( ) Free Wheeler ( )
Large Company Recruiter ( ) Returns each year
Crew Chief ( ) to each grower ( )
Other (explain)
50. List any charges made by the camp operator to the occupants,
(for example, maintenance, upkeep, gas, rent, electricity,
showers, blankets, bedding, gloves, aprons, boots, etc.)
7 -
4912
MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT
immL bw wm
MANPOWER EVALUATION & DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
1329 1 8th STREET N.W.. WASHINGTON. DC. 20036 202 387-1028
4913
Annual Report -- 1969
Migrant Research Project (M. E.D.I.)
1 329 1 8th Street N. W.
Washington, D.C., 20036
Miss Margaret Garrity, Director January 31, 1970
4914
Table of Contents
Introduction '
Methodology - '
Demographic Characteristics II
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations Ill
Part I
Chapter I — Perspective 1
Chapter II — Lack of Food as it Relates to Lack of Income. 4
Chapter III — Sources of Income: Wages,
Bonus — Impact of Mechanization 5
Chapter IV — Housing: A Fringe Benefit of Employment 11
Part II
Chapter V — Administrative Barriers to Welfare 16
Part III
Chapter VI — Negotiation for Change 20
Part IV — Special Studies
Chapter VII — Worker Survey Sampling 23
Chapter VIII — Special Wisconsin Project 27
Chapter IX — South Texas Survey 30
Chapter X — Special Housing Survey 34
Chapter XI — Diary of Sugar Beet Worker 37
Part V
Acknowledgments 42
4915
INTRODUCTION
The Migrant Research Project of the Manpower
Evaluation and Development Institute was funded by the
Office of Economic Opportunity in 1968 under two
grants. One, from the Office of Emergency Food and
Medical Services was to provide emergency food and
medical services to needy migrants. The other, funded by
the Office of Demonstration and Research, was to
determine whether migrant agricultural and seasonal
farmworkers were discriminated against by public
agencies delivering services to the poor. If they were,
we were to determine the extent and nature of that
discrimination, and to propose and effect solutions which
would serve to correct the problems of hunger and
malnutrition among migrants. A small amount of money
for legal advocacy was available.
Therefore, the project saw as its mandate, a three-
fold purpose:
a) to provide Emergency Food, and Medical Services
funds to needy migrants.
b) to accumulate and document facts which estab-
lish the existence of practices and attitudes
which exclude migrants from adequate participa-
tion in federal food and other relevant programs.
c) to provide technical assistance to migrant groups
and to government agencies in an effort to im-
prove the provision of needed service to migrants.
Methods were selected to gather current and unbiased
information seeking to determine whether migrants
generally are excluded from participation in federal
programs established to assist other American citizens.
The result of the scope and approach of this project
has provided, what we believ=, is valuable information
and insight into the nature of the problem of the mi-
grant worker. In view of this, the purpose of this report
is not, in all instances, to provide clear reasons for the
necessity of legal remedies to the plight of the migrant;
but rather through the composite of information, provide
a framework for further discussion and investigation of
the many issues which cloud the lives of those who labor
in the fields of this Nation. We acknowledge the immense
complexity of the issues and problems here raised. We
also acknowledge the need for all citizens to find
solutions to the social and economic ills that plague the
lives of those affected by migrancy. It is hoped this
report may serve as a tool to more clearly define the
problem and point to solutions.
METHODOLOGY
The Migrant Research Project was funded as a
national program with a partial mandate to fulfill emer-
gency requests for food when there was no alternate
solution. Therefore, it was necessary to so structure
the agency to cope with the life pattern of the migrant
and the vocation he pursues. Secondly, it was necessary
to collect information from and about the public agencies
responsible for implementing programs from which he
was to benefit, at the federal, state, and local level.
This double duty made it necessary to develop a
distribution system by which the agency could have
both a strong and informed base for information and
advocacy and maintain available field contacts with
migrants. The migrants and their representative organ-
izations, e.g. indigenous groups and Office of Economic
Opportunity, Title III-B grantees were to distribute
funds, respond to the need for local advocacy, and to
gather data. Consequently, the agency developed a
methodology of funding sub-contractees, hereinafter
referred to as "grantees." Thirty-two such grantees
were funded by The Migrant Research Project to handle
emergency food money and, with the assistance of the
Migrant Research Project staff, gather data to be used
as the basis of this report. Two other grantees were
funded for special projects ; one medical, the other tech-
nical assistance to a producers' cooperative. In addition,
a study was made of official state welfare plans and food
plans to determine whether or not they contained suffi-
cient flexibility to meet the emergency needs of migrants,
and whether the state and local officials were using this
flexibility to the best advantage of hungry migrants.
In conjunction with this, the Migrant Research Project
staff studied the federal laws and regulations pertain-
ing to these programs to determine the amount of flexi-
bility possible at the state and county level to administer
to the needs of migrants.
Laws pertaining to employment conditions which di-
rectly contribute to hunger problems of migrant workers
were studied to determine the extent to which migrant
workers were protected by these laws, and whether the
laws were implemented. These included the Employment
Security Act, the Crew Leader Registration Act, and
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Other laws, such as the
Workmen's Compensation Acts of several states, were
studied to determine the exclusionary practices of such
laws as far as agricultural workers are concerned.
Field data was collected in three ways: 1) Personal
interviews with migrants by Migrant Research Project
staff or delegate agency staff, 2) Questionnaires, corre-
spondence, or special projects with state public agencies
and; or grantees; and 3) Special projects or conferences
with federal agencies or congressional leaders.
It was clear from the beginning that providing food
services to needy migrants in emergency situations
offered a potential for information gathering that could
be important in determining the cause of the poverty
of migrants. Thus, the Migrant Research Project in so
expanding and developing this potential has demon-
strated the ability to be effective as a catalyst agency
and as a coordinator while successfully aiding migrants
to seek and secure needed food services.
The information and data gathered by The Migrant
Research Project is large in volume. While no claim is
made to present these facts as detailed in-depth research,
enough documentation exists to present the broad
pattern of problems that migrant workers face in every
state. Consequently, on the basis of the data collected,
it is possible to make recommendation that certain
4916
changes must take place in the legislative process as it
affects migrants, and in the enforcement of laws to alter
the economic and social pattern of their lives. The
statistics presented are based on a sampling of migrants
who, by reason of an emergency, requested food assist-
ance, and who, in many cases, were served in a pressed
time situation. The results, therefore, are subject to
errors of response and reporting as well as being subject
to sampling variability.
The total number of migrants served by the Migrant
Research Project, reflected in this report, was 3,078
families. This represents 20,949 individuals fed for a
total of 192,007 people days.l or an average of 9 days
per person. Cost per person averaged 53 cents per day.
The assistance was given in 18 states, 5 home-base
states and 11 stream states. The time during which the
assistance was granted was from December 1968 through
September 1969 — 10 months.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
The demographic characteristics of the group are re-
flected in the following tables. Please note the tables do
not include total figures from Colorado, Michigan,
Missouri, northern Utah, Indiana or California. Sub-
(1) — People days — individ
uals fed X days fed.
too late for tabulation or it was in
an
ncomplete stat
TABLE I
Annual Family Income
Over $3000
$2500-$3000
$150O-$250O
Below $1500
%
308
292
751
2720
8*
1%
18*
67*
TABLE H
Ages of Family Members
0-5
6-15
16-21 22-44
1*5-64
65+
Total
4440
7317
2910
3977
1803
491
20,949
%
21*
35*
14*
19*
1095
2?5
101*
It is interesting to note more than one-half of the individuals fed
through the Migrant Research Project program were children under
the age of 15 years.
TABLE m
Family Size
14+ Total
4917
Migrant workers at Yoder Bros, flower propagating farm
in Ft. Myers, Florida, Jobs arranged through CAMP.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- 4918
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Migrant Research Project, over the past year, has
documented and disseminated facts regarding those
practices which exclude migrants from adequate partici-
pation in federal food and other relevant programs. The
major conclusion from this study is that migrant
workers are administratively kept from such participa-
tion by exclusionary clauses in federal and state labor,
social, and other protective legislation.
Special Provisions Needed
Insistence of government, at all levels, that proper
implementation of legislation must be developed to the
advantage of the majority of its voting citizens insures
that the "voiceless" migrant will have little considera-
tion in the passage of such laws. Further, regulatory
agencies charged with administration of such programs
are equally as zealous in the guidelines they develop to
assure careful "implementation of the act" in accord-
ance with the "intent of Congress." Narrow interpreta-
tion and bureaucratic red tape is a major result.
Governmental agencies implementing labor, welfare,
and other programs must be accountable for following
the statutes that created these agencies. They must
develop fair and equitable rules and procedures to carry
out the intent of the law. They must also provide fair
procedures to persons seeking redress from the agency.
Careful analysis of the problems of migrancy both
to the workers and to those communities who utilize
the services of migrants as a part of the community's
economic life, must be related to the ability of both
governmental and private agencies to accomodate such
workers to the benefits of community life. Of necessity,
this requires an extraordinary amount of coordination
of services and common goals between those agencies
able to control and deliver such benefits. Accomplish-
ment of such coordination can only be achieved with
careful planning of goals, staffing patterns, and re-
sources of the entire community. Critical to migrants
receiving services is the attitude of community leaders
and the accomodation they are willing to allow to the
non-resident migrant. Significant data are contained
in the pages of this report as a result of the special
projects conducted by the Migrant Research Project
to have demonstrated that such coordination and
common goals do not exist nor are they likely to occur.
Therefore, it is the second conclusion of this report
that it is not possible to incorporate citizens of a mobile
nature into present structures of welfare assistance de-
signed to meet the needs of a resident population. The
reasons for this are more fully developed under the
section entitled, Administrative Barriers to Welfare.
Agencies distributing food stamps or commodities
should make special provisions to expedite the servicing
of migrants. Specific steps to be taken should include
evening office hours, utilization of bilingual staff or
volunteers, and the vending of food stamps on a daily
basis rather than only on certain days.
Commodity counties should make provisions to have
additional food stuffs available during the harvest
season. Furthermore, supplemental direct relief monies
should be made available to provide supplemental but
essential foods not available with commodities.
Necessity for National Standards
Since it is incumbent, in a democratic society, for the
government to provide equally for the needs of all of
its citizens, it becomes essential for government to
establish programs that will assure equal treatment for
the mobile agricultural migrant. However, those who
argue that all citizens must be served under identical
regulatory procedures should bear in mind the small
proportion of migrants who are able to receive assistance
under the exclusionary regulations presently in effect.
Equal consideration under the law is impossible when
the regulations enacted do not consider the inability of
the mobile migrant applicant to comply with eligibility
requirements under the conditions which are basic in his
life style and employment pattern.
Each of the states of this Nation develops guidelines
and receives approval for the federally assisted welfare
programs they administer. This not only allows for,
but insures there will be variances in the eligibility re-
quirements and the benefits of such plans. A migrant
worker must make application for assistance in each
county where he travels and finds himself in need of
welfare services. Not only does his lack of knowledge
concerning the variances in eligibility requirements and
benefits in the state plans compound his confusion, but
generally he cannot furnish the variety of documents
that are necessary.
Because of the combination of these factors, the Mi-
grant Research Project recommends the enactment of a
National certification process for migrant agricultural
workers which will provide for national eligibility cer-
tification in the homebase state. It should be based upon
the applicant's annual wage on a self-certification basis.
Once eligibility is determined, the migrant worker should
be issued a card which shall be honored for services
at all welfare offices in the United States for all
Federally assisted programs during that period of time
such eligibility is declared to be in effect. The costs to
the individual counties for such assistance should be
100% reimbursed by the federal government. Eligibility
should be determined during the off-season and be
established for one-year periods of time.
If it is deemed necessary and proper, random checks
to determine the percent of accuracy achieved on the
self-certification basis can be made through the United
States Social Security Administration which should have
an accurate recording of all earnings. It should be
pointed out, however, that the cost /time factor of the
lengthy verification procedure required to certify mi-
grants under the present system far outweighs the cost
of services for that small percentage of migrant workers
who might receive services for which they were techni-
cally ineligible. This is particularly true in food
programs.
Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture
It is the final conclusion of this report that the United
States Congress must impartially and fairly consider
the needs of all of its citizenry ; and acting in its be-
half, make sweeping legislative changes in programs and
laws at the federal level which will create a proper,
efficient and profitable method of maintaining the agri-
cultural economy, provide for equal protection of the
civil and civic rights of the agricultural migrant workers,
and, thereafter, insist upon fair and just implementation
4919
of such laws. The United States Department of Agricul-
ture has demonstrated an ability to serve the need of the
farm owner, whether large or small, in a variety of
programs which protect his land, his crops, and his
income. There can be no question about the high prior-
ity the Congress has placed on the farm programs of
the various administrations. It is time for the farm
worker to be brought under the same protection of the
income supplement programs of the United States De-
partment of Agriculture as are established to the benefit
of the farm owner. It is our recommendation that the
vast resources of staff and budget of the United States
Department of Agriculture be charged specifically by
the United States Congress with gaining for the farm
workers a more equitable share of the benefits of the
vast numbers of programs available to the farm owner.
CHILD OF HOPE.
4920
A common focus on migrancy is difficult to establish.
The Migrant Research Project has utilized simple in-
formation gathering techniques in the three major
stream areas to enable us to describe a family repre-
sentative of the migrant population.
The Migrant Research Project migrant population
presented here is a composite of the black migrant in
the East and the Mexican-American migrant of the
Mid- West and Southwest areas. Therefore the reader is
cautioned to keep in mind that this population is a com-
posite of two ethnic groups facing similar problems,
that cut across cultural lines. This is possible because
agricultural migrancy is a vocation, not a cultural
group. The problems and difficulties presented apply
to all streams and in all geographic areas. Thus it
matters little where the field work is performed, the
facts of the employment, as revealed in the Migrant
Research Project surveys are constant and the same.
No work was done by the Migrant Research Project in
the predominately Appalachian white migrant areas.
The typical agricultural migrant applying for Migrant
Research Project emergency food assistance was travel-
ing in a crew with a family of averaging 6.7 total per-
sons. He wintered in the home-base states of Texas,
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana. He was
largely unemployed during the winter months, particu-
larly if his homebase area was the Rio Grande Valley
of Texas. He often tried to seek work as an unskilled
laborer in industry', just as his summer grower em-
ployer in agriculture in the north, often seeks and is
employed in industry during the winter. Since the
mechanization of cotton has become almost totally com-
plete, more of his family group and his friends have
begun migrating across state lines into other winter
homebase states.
The constant battle to maintain his family has forced
the migrant into a debt economy from which he never
emerges. Loans against future earnings are necessary
and sought from every possible source. This compli-
cates even the small bargaining power he may have
for gaining better working conditions and better wages
— a bargaining power which is almost solely his wits.
A low educational level and lack of knowledge of not
only assistance resources but his right to such assist-
ance requires concerted outreach effort on the part of
the welfare and health agencies. This effort is almost
never made nor is it administratively planned for by
federal, state, or county agencies with such responsibility.
HI— An one
lysis of automobile operati
ng costs by
the E
ureau of Public
Roads of The
Federal Highway Adm
ms
rot.on. U.S
Def-
of Tronsporta-
tion is base
j on a $2,800 car dm
en
100,000 m
ies
:vet a 10
year
period.*
2 8c o
iginal vehicle cost dep
2.1c rr
omtenance, accessories.
fire
s and parts
1.7c gos and o.l lexcludmg la
es
1.8c g
Drage parking, tolls
1.2c s
ate and federal taxes
("November
1968. Some costs have
increased since
this
report was
pre
pared in Ja
uary, 1968, but the ir
ases are no
t yet
deemed
o be
sufficient to
warrant making and issu
ng
a new report.)
PART I
Chapter I- PERSPECTIVE
Understaffed and underbudgeted local agencies use the
variances in state plans and durational residency re-
quirements as justification for eliminating migrants
from desperately needed assistance. In this way, the
government reinforces the debt economy status of the
Migrant and firmly establishes his peonage.
Entering the Stream
Our typical migrant family left the home-base area
in early spring. He was recruited to work in the north
without any type of legitimate contract which spells
out wages, working conditions, fringe benefits, etc. In-
deed, 85 percent of the migrants studied by the M.R.P.
worker survey form were not told when recruited what
their wages would be for the work for which they were
recruited. Seventy-nine percent of the migrants surveyed
had not signed a contract. Of those 21 percent who had
signed any papers, 79 percent had not received a copy.
During recruitment, our MRP migrant was often en-
couraged by the recruiter, vying to fill work orders
from the north on a per capita fee basis, to list as work-
ers as many family members as possible. Loans made to
cover travel expenses are made on a per worker basis.
Food for the entire family must come from this loan.
Thus there is considerable incentive to list children 10
years of age and sometimes younger as workers.
An average travel pattern in the Mid-West stream —
from Crystal City, Texas to Washura County, Wiscon-
sin for pickle and cucumber harvests, is an 1800 mile
drive. At $ .11 per mile operating costs2, the migrant
needs $198.00 to operate an automobile, his usual means
of transportation.
Taking into consideration the cost of transportation
plus the additional necessary costs of food and lodging
on the way, the migrant worker has spent as much
money trying to get to his place of employment as he
may make for the first several weeks of the season.
If the crop is poor, he is left with very little or, more
often, no money with which to purchase food.
Debt Economy for the Workers
On the average, the Migrant Research Project typical
family arrived in the work area three weeks prior to the
4921
time field work was available. Again, the necessity for
food forced the family deeper into debt and further loans
against future earnings were obtained from the grower.3
At times, these were made in the form of grocery
coupons which had to be redeemed in a specified store.
Wage collection laws prohibiting this practice did not
cover him as an agricultural worker, and thus, his
limited freedom was further entailed by limiting the
way in which his money could be spent to purchase
food — often at inflated prices. He could not purchase
food stamps where his purchasing power would be
greater, better enabling him to nourish his family. Nor
could he buy fuel to warm them and guard against the
upper respiratory infections which are chronic with his
family. Small wonder his newborn child died at a rate
of 200% higher than for the rest of the population or
that he, himself, has a life expectancy of 49 years. 4
The other major factor in the life of the Migrant Re-
search Project migrant family is "hope for a good
season." It is this hope which propels him into the
stream and makes him vulnerable to the verbal promises
of the recruiter.
Once the typical Migrant Research Project migrant
family began work, need for rapid income and the
grower's need for immediate field work meshed. All
family members went into the fields. There was little
evidence of the willingness of public educational agencies
to enforce school attendance laws even though the
children in the Migrant Research Project family were
on the average two grades behind normal for their age
level. Overcrowded classrooms, language difficulties,
transportation problems and shortness of the term were
the major reason for this lack of interest.
Most public school agencies held the belief that the
migrant children completed their school year in Texas
before coming north ; thus, parents, employers, and
public school systems implement the child labor recruit-
ment that takes place in the homebase.
Wage Difficulties
Field and work conditions brought about by weather
and the use of herbicides are the major cause of the wage
and hour complaints expressed by the migrant, but
rarely filed formally. To further insure the availability
of ready labor; and as a condition of employment, the
Migrant Research Project migrant family generally
(3) — The mojority of migrants who received MRP food assistance in the
stream states hod not previously applied to public welfare assistance
offices for certification for food programs The reasons for this ore not
clear nor was MRP able to gather sufficient documentation to draw
definite conclusions. A major difficulty was the requirement for verifica-
tion of income Another contributor appeared to be lack of out-reach
personnel <n public assistance offices for there to be serious effort to
extend services to migrant labor camps. However, it must be said that
when such out-reoch did occur, whether it was provided through the
welfare office or from an outside agency, and when the migrant worker
was able to provide sufficient documentation so os to prove eligibility,
the majority of workers who did apply for food programs did receive
such assistance.
141 — U.S. Public Health Service — Migrant Health Division. (Although all
of the migrant families requesting emergency food assistance met the
income eligibility standards to receive public welfare assistance, only
495 actually received such help This was either Aid to Dependent
Children or Social Security in most instances- A total of 2.19S families
applied for welfare assistance The principal reason given for denying
general welfare assistance upon application was residency, yet the
Migrant Division of the Office of Economic Opportunity found 12% of
the migrant population to be malnourished.)
agreed verbally to a "hold-back" of a percentage of his
weekly earnings which is referred to as a "bonus." This
money is paid him at the end of the season if he
"satisfactorily" completes his work and moves from
field to field as requested. "Satisfactory completion of
work" is interpreted to mean that the migrant must
remain for as little as nine or ten hours work per week
or until the grower has no further need of hand labor!
1968 MERIT CARD
Graciano Espinoza
Head of Family or Group
empioyd b. Am 03 Larson
S*e;
An American Crystal Sugar Co. Grows
Factory District.
Social Security No
^kr
Minn.
461
48
1245
. Paper 10*7 1—172
1-351
-"^ Texal Office Manager '
In addition, regular deductions from wages were made
to insure repayment of past loans. This diminished the
availability of ready cash with which to purchase food
stamps, food, or medical treatment, let alone the trans-
portation needed to seek other work. At times, a migrant
negotiated for an early release in order to keep com-
mitments to growers in other areas. When not success-
ful, he was sometimes forced to leave without all the
wages he felt were due him to avoid being "black-
listed" at the next worksite which would mean not only
loss of work this crop season, but in ensuing years as
well. If the crew leader or recruiter had committed
him to another worksite, he felt compelled to honor
this non-existent work contract. Since generally he
received no payslips of weekly earnings with itemized
deductions, there is no proof of any descrepancy in wages
earned and received.
Altogether our typical migrant family had twelve
employers during the year and traveled through at
least eight states. Since the summer of 1969 was a
disaster in the crops, he had little to show for his sum-
mer's earnings, and returned to Texas hungry, without
resources, a victim of administrative structure and ex-
clusion from the legislative processes. His average an-
nual wage was less than $1500.
It should be stressed that the above circumstances
are his everyday facts of life not experienced piece-meal
in several areas, but wherever our Migrant Research
Project migrant traveled. We shall deal with some of
the many difficulties he experiences in the following
sections of this report, and make an attempt to clarify
from our research, the many conditions and structures
which collectively insures that these problems do and
will continue to exist. The recommendations based upon
our study may prove startling to all who strive to
alleviate these conditions under the present structure
of government. We hope they will receive careful study
and consideration.
4922
[Photos by Jo Moore Srewo
"Every man beareth the whole
stamp of the human condition."
— MONTAIGNE-
4923
Chapter II
LACK OF FOOD AS IT RELATES TO LACK OF INCOME
The serious problem of malnutrition and nutritional
deficiency in the United States has not limited itself
only to to the poor, but has demonstrated itself to be a
problem of the affluent as well. Consequently, health
educators and nutritionists have made a strong case for
the need of effective education programs. Food additives
and concentrated snack items have appeared on the
market and much attention has been given to publicizing
the appalling nutritional problems that exist.
The relationship of family income to malnutrition,
while not clearly demonstrated, must be basic to any
argument in support of food programs. Thus, poverty
as a basic cause of malnutrition among migrant workers
in an assumption of this report.
To argue this supposition, the Migrant Research
Project entered into an agreement with the Migrant
Action Program of Iowa to determine the effect of in-
come upon food purchases and diet of poor migrants.
MAP was able to utilize emergency food money pro-
vided by MRP in three ways: 1) to purchase federal
food stamps to take advantage of their bonus purchas-
ing power, 2) to augment food stamp purchases with
direct purchase from retail outlets, 3) direct purchase
from retail outlets in those places or at those times
when food stamps and commodities were not available.
Using the direct purchase of food from retail outlets
as the basis of the study, MAP arranged with grocery
stores to accept food vouchers issued by MAP workers
to needy migrants for purchase of food. No attempt was
made to influence the items purchased nor was any
health and nutrition education program attempted. The
only condition placed upon purchase was that they be
made for edible items under the terms of the Federal
Food Stamp Act.
Grocers, in turn, agreed to bill Migrant Action Pro-
gram and to supply itemized lists of food items pur-
chased by the migrants.
MAP later reported that "even with the food stamp
program, many families simply cannot afford an
adequate diet. Furthermore, many families cannot . . .
get certified for the food stamp program or cannot
afford to purchase stamps."
To be eligible for participation in the project, a mi-
grant had to meet the Office of Economic Opportunity
guidelines as defined by the Migrant Division of OEO.
Emergencies which generated the assistance were de-
fined as "including periods of unemployment when the
family lacked sufficient money to purchase food stamps
or when emergency medical situations arose." No attempt
was made to document classification of purchased food
items when resources other than MRP funds were the
major source of food purchased, or when food was pur-
chased with food stamps. This will be picked up in the
coming year.
Purchases under the MRP contract totaled 310, serv-
ing a total of 1,906 individuals for an average family size
of 6.1 members. The average cost per individual served
was $ .57 per days. Of the $12,942 total food outlet,
twenty-two percent was for the purchase of food stamps,
and seventy-eight percent was for the purchase of food
at a retail outlet. The latter represents the basis for the
argument herein presented.
Total amount expended by MAP for direct purchase
was $10,103.
Frequency of items purchased by migrants in the
basic food classifications were as follows:
Meats 22.0 %
Milk Products 12.6 %
Cereals 19.8 %
Vegetables 17.0 7.
Fruits 11.6 V.
Other 17.0%
On the basis of the above study, it can be clearly
demonstrated that the percentage of income available
for food purchase does effect the basic diet of an in-
dividual family. Thus, it can be concluded if a person's
income falls below the index of poverty, either less ex-
pensive or less nutritious food will have to be purchased
or other expenses reduced.
It is notable that when families received emergency
food assistance this past summer, they purchased items
which they normally cannot afford: particularly meats
and fruits. The MAP report concluded; "Health educa-
tion is important, but families must also be provided with
enough assistance to make an adequate diet feasible."*
Thus, it can be demonstrated that income, rather than
culture is the basic ingredient necessary to assure an
adequate diet among migrant workers if the level of
malnutrition is to be reduced.
MIGRANT RESEARCH PROJECT
(5] — Migrant Action Progr<
Report, 1969.
(6) — MAP onnuol report, 1969.
4924
Chapter HE
SOURCES OF INCOME:
WAGES, BONUS - IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION
If we accept the validity of the necessity of income as
the basic ingredient in combating malnutrition and lack
of food among migrant workers, it becomes obvious that
some method must be employed to raise the income level
of those so afflicted. Other necessary functions, e.g.
education in areas such as consumer protection, nutri-
tion, preventive medicine, budgeting, etc., can only be
effective when income for food purchase (or adequate
food itself) is available.
WAGES
Migrant and seasonal farm workers report annual
incomes substantially below other members of the
nation's work force. Their claims have been upheld
and documented by the United States Sub-committee
on Migratory Labor which reported the average annual
farm wage in 1966 for migratory workers to be $1,046;
and astoundingly enough, a drop in annual farm wage
.«,— nii™i»iifMmnm»mni^
• GIBSON CITY. ILLINOIS •
NOT GOOD FOR OVER $200 OO
405 CARLOS DE LA CRUZ
FACTORY PAYROLL ACCOUNT
si «■ £6 1. "ie a «• i:o? i t-'Ogsqi:
66^923 JUL S 69
G64923
$0.69
STOKELY-VAN CAMP. INC.
AitWi-
• HOOPESTON. ILLINOIS •
NOT GOOD FOR OVER S200 OO
CHECK
1.U0* SARA R CARRILLO
710.237 mi%&
SO 26
FACTORY PAYROLL ACCOUNT
CITY NATIONAL BANK HOOPESTON Illinois
4925
work in 1967 of $124 to $926 average annual wage.7
This despite the fact the average daily wage earned rose
from $10.80 to $10.85.a Those who worked outside of
agriculture averaged around $2,100 of which $800 was
from farm work.
By 1968, migrants whose activities were restricted to
farm work earned only $1,018, still below the 1966
level!' On the average, migrants earned only $1,562
from all sources in 1968. However, the 43 '/. who obtained
both farm and non-farm employment had a considerably
higher average — $2,274 of which $1,491 was for non-
farm work. The average hourly farm wage rate in July
of 1969 was $1.58 (without board or room) which is an
increase of only 9% over 1968. The Department of Labor
in February of 1970 reported the cost of living rose 6.27.
over the previous year.
During this same period of time, the median United
States family income was $7,400. Irregularity of migrant
employment is one reason for the low annual wage.
Negative Income for Migrant Workers
In spite of recent improvements in farm wage rates,
which has risen from $1.14 an hour in 1965 to $1.58 an
hour in July of 1969, there are still 13 states with
average wages below the present federal minimum wage
for agriculture. The low of $1 hourly average in South
Carolina to over $1.70 in California, Connecticut, Nevada,
and Washington must be related to the 120 10 total
average number of days worked by those workers who
did only farm work. The low average income on the
basis of an average 8-hour day would vary from $1,360
to $2,312 as contrasted with the United States mediam
income.
According to William H. Jones writing in the Wash-
ington Post on November 16, 1969, the median family
income in the United States will approach $10,000 next
year; an increase of 757. since 1960, but a rise of only
307. after allocation for inflation and taxes. If this same
percentage is compared to the 15.6 7. increase in the
migrant workers wage since 1959, it is easy to see the
migrant worker is left with a negative income.
Under the Fair Standards Practices Act, farm workers
are covered under a minimum wage of $1.30 per hour if
the employer utilizes farm workers for a total of at
least 500 man hours per quarter. In 1966, only two per-
cent of the farms using hired help in the United States
were covered under this legislation, the rest were exempt
from the Federal minimum wage. In 1967 only 35% of
the farms were required to pay a minimum wage under
the provisions. 11
In 1969, the composite hourly wage rate for migrant
workers averaged $1.33 per hour; the January 1970
composite hourly rate was $1.50; up 9 7. from January
of 1969.
Those who argue that raising the wage of farm work-
ers will price food out of the market are ignorant of the
161 — US. Department of Labor, Sept 1967 & 1968.
|9] — Robert C. McElroy The Hired Farm Working Force of 1968"
Ag. Econ. Report No. 164.
110] — US. Department of Agriculture. Sept. 1967 & 1968 pp. 53.
112) — United States Department of Labor.
percentages of the cost of the product through wages —
for example, lemons cost 24 cents per pound; field cost
are 0.6 to 1 cent per pound. Grapefruit, costing 8 to
10 cents apiece, cost the grower in field labor 2 to 4
cents.u
Irregularity of Employment — Need For
Legislative Protection
While the above figures show that there was a 15.67.
increase in the wages paid migrant farm workers be-
tween 1959 and 1968, the monetary gains made by this
sector of our Nation's work force can be shown as
virtually negligible when evaluated in light of several
other factors.
The migrant worker still finds himself victim of an
ever tightening availability of work. This is due to
several factors. The two most important are irregu-
larity of employment and the increase in mechanization
of crops.
It is important to note that unemployment and
irregularity of employment is the chief reason given
by migrants for entering the stream. For example, the
unemployment rate in January, 1970 in the Laredo,
Texas area, was 10.8% of the total work force and was
rising. The Texas Employment Commission attributed
this "mainly to the continued inflow of migrant workers
into the area.'' They went on to say, "By Mid-March
the unemployed total should begin to subside as the out-
flow of migrant workers returning to their jobs in the
north gets underway." The hardships and lack of income
suffered by migrants in the homebase states during the
off-season increases the attractiveness and pre-supposed
increased earnings in the north during the crop season.
However, the low wages in agriculture are not caused
only by unemployment, irregularity of employment,
mechanization, or the low-profit margin of individual
growers as opposed to the larger employers. The lack
of legislation governing wages and working conditions,
plus discriminatory practices cited in this report further
diminish wages and the chance for a fair standard of
living.
It is interesting to note that 67 7. of the number of
migrants requiring emergency food assistance under the
MHP program in 1969 earned an annual wage of less
than $1,500. (See charts Introduction.)
The MRP study also shows the largest percentage of
migrants traveling in the stream did so in family group
sizes of from 5 to 7 members. This was true in every
region of the United States. Only in the Eastern region
of the country did the project serve families larger than
17 members.
Due to the irregularity of the migrant's employment,
it would seem logical that in time of unemployment, he
would be covered by unemployment compensation as in
all other major job classifications in private industry-
Traditional excuses have kept the migrant from this
important protection; this results in discriminatory ex-
clusion from the law.
Rate for Sugar Beet Workers
Under the Sugar Beet Act, the Secretary of Labor is
directed to set a fair and reasonable rate. He is author-
ized to make payments on the condition that, among
others, all persons employed on the farm in the pro-
duction, cultivation, or harvesting of sugar beets or
sugar cane with respect to which an application for
payment is made shall have been paid in full for all
such work, and shall have paid wages, therefore, at rates
not less than those that may be determined by the
4926
Secretary to be fair and reasonable after investigation
and due notice and opportunity for public hearing.
The regulations for 1968 provided for payment to
workers either on a minimum wage rate of $1.50 per
hour, or on one of several piece rates per acre as
specified for each of five different functions. The $1.50
hourly minimum wage was set for 1968 as a fair and
reasonable wage rate based on evidence presented at
hearings. However, the piece rate alone does not
guarantee that all workers receive a fair and reason-
able wage. In fact, the piece rate does not assure any
minimum hourly rate per man.
In July, the Utah State Employment Service reported
to the U.S. Department of Labor on wages of sugar
beet workers in various regions of that state. In the
South Central sugar beet area, Utah reported that' the
average wages of one group of employees working at a
piece rate of $11.00 per acre for weeding were $ .92 per
hour for each worker. In the same region for the same
activity during the same time period those working on
a piece rate of $10.75 per acre made $1.67 per hour.
The Migrant Research Project has found the piece rate
as used by the Secretary of Labor as the sole means of
determining fair and reasonable wage rates for em-
ployes in certain sugar beet activities to be unsatis-
factory. A piece rate could be maintained if it were
combined with an absolute minimum wage below which
each worker could not be paid. Whatever the Secretary
finds to be a fair and reasonable wage rate for all em-
ployees should apply as a minimum to all activities.
It is MRP's contention that a piece rate may have no
necessary relationship to a fair and reasonable wage
rate, and that the piece rate alone is not an adequate
standard to ensure that fair and reasonable wages are
received by all employees. Therefore, MRP believes
that by using the piece rate as the sole standard for
determining fair and reasonable rates for some activities,
the Secretary of Labor has not met a necessary con-
dition to payment to growers under the Sugar Beet Act.
The Act also requires that as a condition to making
payment to sugar beet producers, the Secretary' shall
ensure that a fair and reasonable wage rate is received
by all workers. MRP believes this is another condition
to payment that has not been met.
BONUSES
As already noted, the earnings of a migrant worker
vary greatly due to several factors. During the sum-
mer when weather is bad, many families do not break
even by the end of the summer; consequently many
leave, if they can, in search of better field conditions.
Crews that leave the homebase together, do not always
stay together throughout the season. Many factors can
and do cause the division of the crew.
Since many crops, such as asparagus and tomatoes,
are perishable and labor is difficult to recruit during the
season, most companies and growers have established
a "bonus" system with the intent of making it difficult
for the mig'rant to leave before the end of the crop
season without losing a substantial amount of money.
The "bonus" system operates in a number of ways.
It may be 1) a deduction from wages withheld until the
end of the season; 2) travel advances made at the be-
ginning of the season to help the family with expenses
from Texas. These advances need not be repaid at the
end of the season if the work has been satisfactorily
performed; or 3) based on the amount of work per-
formed, i.e. the asparagus worker receiving a 4 cent
bonus for each additional pound over 8,000 pounds.
If the bonus is a deduction from wages earned, but is
withheld until the end of the season, it is a "hold-back."
This amounts to garnishment of wages. When bonuses
have been withheld from wages, it is important to see
if the wages paid meet the federal or state minimum
wage requirements. Since most migrant workers do not
receive paycheck stubs listing wages earned, hours
worked, deductions made, this is generally very difficult
for the migrant worker to document. Further, when
the worker performs the work on a contract basis, it is
exceedingly difficult for him to prove that he was not
paid the federal or state minimum wage. He must
document carefully the hours actually worked, the
pounds, bushels, or acres covered, and payment received.
This is difficult to do, particularly in sugar beets where
the workers are not paid until the end of the season.
Use of Bonus To Retain Labor
Whenever the bonus system is used, the overall intent
is to retain labor regardless of working or living con-
ditions. As one company notes of its bonus, "This refund
will be made only to those workers who stay and com-
plete the full season, or who are excused by mutual
agreement by the crew leader and the company manage-
ment. The workers must have done a satisfactory job,
in that he worked when necessary .moved from farm to
farm with his crew when requested, and did a clean
job of snapping (asparagus) . . ." In some instances,
completion of the full season requires that the family
remain until late fall working in warehouses or clean-
ing fields, even when only a few hours of work each
day are available. For migrants, the presence of the
"hold-back bonus" which in effect, is garnishment of his
earnings not only places him in peonage, but diminishes
the available money with which to purchase food or food
stamps. Thus, he may be at the peak of his earning
capacity, and still be without ready cash with which to
provide the necessities of life for his family. This places
him in jeopardy when he applies for participation in
the foodstamp program, since he must verify his earn-
ings to the welfare office. When he is unable to do this,
county welfare officials generally accept telephone veri-
fication from the grower instead of self-declaration
from the migrant worker. The employer may or may not
given accurate information. When a portion of the
migrant's earnings are withheld from him, he often does
not have the cash to make the necessary purchase even
though he may succeed in being certified.
Migrants frequently reported to MRP loss of bonus
when disputes developed with the employer regarding
field or crop conditions and the wage to be paid. Typical
was a family in a mid-west stream state who came to
work at the tomato harvest. Altogether, the family had
twelve members, and each worker was paid 15 cents for
each basket of tomatoes picked. However, 2 cents from
each 15 cents earned was withheld as a bonus to be
collected at the end of the season. If the working con-
ditions were excellent, the family might be able to pick
as many as 90 to 100 baskets per day.
Toward the end of the season, the grower told the
migrant to pick the tomatoes in a field where the crop
was thin and there were many weeds. The migrant
estimated that he would only be able to pick one basket
per hour; earning 13 cents per hour for his labor. When
he refused to pick the field at the 15 cent rate, the
grower presented the family with a one day eviction
notice and withheld the "bonus" for failing to remain
until the end of the season and performing the work as
required !
4927
COUPONS
Many migrants, because of irregular employment due
in part to low wages and weather conditions, are pro-
vided with advances during the summer by their em-
ployer. In general, advances are made for 1) travel
from Texas to the field location, 2) food and other pur-
chases when fields cannot be entered because of weather
conditions or work is not available, 3) purchases
necessary for the performance of the work such as
gloves, aprons, and other items needed. Since small
growers particularly are not paid by the processor until
the end of the season when the harvest is complete, they
often arrange credit at local grocery stores for their
migrant labor, guaranteeing this to the store owner; or
they issue the migrant coupon books w.hich must be re-
deemed for food items at specified grocery stores. This
arrangement is, in effect a method of borrowing operat-
ing capital for the grower/employer at the expense of
the migrant laborer who cannot afford to finance the
interest-free debt of his employer.
This practice also prevents migrants from doing com-
parative buying, and often subjects them to higher food
prices with an income already too low for an adequate
diet. It practically assures, they will not have the money
to purchase foodstamps and gain the bonus purchasing
power of the stamp program.
Two examples from southern MinnesotaU this past
summer illustrates the problem.
N? 130
GOOD FOR $8.00 IN TRADE
CANNING COMPANY
:6u?on from any
in Steele County
$1.00
$1.00
INING COMPANY
kupon from any
'tela County
$1.00
$1.00
WATONNA CANNING COMPANY
this coupon from any
ra In Stool* County
$1.00
Mr. G. earned $232.50 for his work in the fields, but
was not paid by his employer. Instead, without his con-
sent, the employer deposited $100 in the local super-
market as credit for food purchases made by Mr. G.
Furthermore, the food prices in this particular store
were considerably higher than elsewhere for the same
items. It was estimated that Mr. G. could have had an
additional $25.00 of groceries had he shopped at another
store with his $100. The purchase of food stamps, had
they been available in this particular county, would have
resulted in a considerably higher amount of food items
for the family.
Nor are migrants allowed to withdraw the money
credited to their account (their earnings as recorded by
the grower) or to cash in the coupons, again issued in
lieu of earnings or instead of cash payment for work
113) — Migrt
i Pfogr<
-Annual Report, 1969.
performed. Mrs. V. was advanced coupons at the rate
of $8.00 each. She was given a total of six coupons
amounting to $48.00. The coupons could be used at
only one supermarket specified by the employer. On
June 27, 1969, Mrs. V. spent $6.81 of the $8.00 coupon
and requested her change. The store manager refused
and said they did not give change on coupons. Mrs. V.
was then obligated to spend the remaining $1.19 im-
mediately. To further complicate the problem, the
Departments of Social Welfare must count these food
coupons as income when certifying a migrant for welfare
assistance programs, even though the migrant did not
have the availability of cash and a choice as to whether
or not to purchase food stamps or any other item.
As a result, many families do not qualify for food stamps
at minimum rates, and do not have the funds with which
to purchase the stamps at the rate they are qualified
to receive them.
4928
MECHANIZATION — A CRISIS SITUATION
For many years, it has seemed apparent that mechani-
zation was having an impact on the number of jobs
available for migrant workers in agriculture. Techno-
logical advances and American "know-how" has made
it possible for fewer workers to produce a greater abund-
ance of foodstuffs than ever before. Small family farms
began to be replaced by giant agri-business. Each year,
it seemed that migrant farm workers traveled more miles
in seach of employment and found fewer jobs. The im-
pact was slow in developing, but always the migrant
heard that the "machine" was "almost perfected" and
was winning the competition for speed and endurance
at less cost to the producer than even his meager piece-
rate wages.
LETTUCE FIELDS IN WISCONSIN
The Migrant Research Project determined to under-
take a very limited sampling to forecast what effect
mechanization of crops would have on availability of
jobs for the coming year. Projections for the year 1970,
in a few selected states where information is available,
raises the question of an employment crisis caused by
increased mechanization and use of chemicals. The Mi-
grant Research Project staff interviewed grantees, public
officials, and migrants to determine what the employ-
ment profile for migrant labor would be in the summer
of 1970. While our interviewing was on a limited basis,
the information obtained is startling and may be sum-
marized as follows:
1) Farmers are doing their own recruitment in
greater numbers than ever before
2) Number of available jobs will be less than ever
before
3) Growers are placing work orders with the
federally funded Farm Labor Service for
migrant workers; while at the same time they
have machines on hand to perform the same
labor
4) Unless remedial steps are taken immediately,
more migrant workers will enter the stream this
year than in the past several years due to lack
of employment in the homebase states.
It seems evident that the hand labor is being recruited
strictly as a back-up labor force to mechanization versus
weather at the expense of the migrant workers. If the
machines prove effective, (and there is no reason to
believe they will not) the workers will be unemployed
despite the fact they were recruited and traveled hun-
drds of miles for non-existent jobs.
It must be stressed that the sampling taken was
limited, and not based on scientific effort, although an
attempt to obtain representation was made. The results
of this study can analytically be broken down according
to the various states or regions sampled and are sum-
marized as follows:
Washington
It was reported by an Office of Economic Opportunity
grantee in one area that the following crops are to be
mechanized this year:
a) grapes (32 machines are on hand —
each replacing 51 people)
b) hops
c) asparagus
Moreover, in spite of the impending mechanization,
the same source reports that the State Employment
Service is recruiting hand labor for these crops in the
same number as last year.
Michigan
According to a variety of contacts there including
those made with the Regional Office of the Federal
Labor Service, an Office of Economic Opportunity funded
migrant program, the State Employment Service, and
an agricultural economist at Michigan State University,
50,000 workers are expected to arrive in the State of
Michigan in 1970. Not all of these persons, however,
were recruited through the Michigan or federal recruit-
ment system; nevertheless, on the basis of recruitment
by fanners and growers, and word-of -mouth transmission
of rumored employment opportunities, that number is
expected in the State of Michigan.
At the same time, our survey revealed that only a
few contracts covering 9,000 jobs had been let. The
number of contracts made to Mid-March 1970 must be
contrasted with the number made in the year of 1968.
In that year, Michigan let 28,000 contracts for the
employment of 74,000 migrants. Since MRP information
was gathered at a point in time when the normal re-
cruitment process had come to an end, it can be con-
cluded that there is a decline of 65,000 jobs and 27,700
contracts, when contrasted with the recruitment year of
1968. Many of these persons will be without employment,
as the same sources indicate that only 15,000 workers
will be employed in Michigan in summer 1970.
NOTE: A late check before printing of this report
reveals (June 10) the regional office of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor does not anticipate more than 1500 to
2000 surplus workers in the state of Michigan during the
summer. They state this will be due to corrective action
taken by U.S. Department of Labor since the issuance
of the above report.
Colorado
An Office of Economic Opportunity funded project
in Colorado informed our personnel that approximately
9000 migrants will come into Colorado this summer.
Due to mechanization projections, it is anticipated that
the total employment in the state will be reduced,
according to these same sources, by 7500 jobs. For ex-
ample, it was reported that a major crop, sugar beets,
will employ only 50 to 60 percent of the workers who
were employed the previous year. The reduction in this
instance, however, is to be caused by a number of
factors: an existing surplus sugar supply, the resultant
change in crops from beets to corn, reliance on avail-
able local labor sources, and mechanization.
Based on information obtained from Texas, recruit-
ment for this area is generally down approximately
40%.
4929
Iowa
Reinbeck, Iowa, employment is down 307. for the
harvesting of asparagus crops and the method of
recruitment has been changed. In this instance,
recruitment was performed by the processor, rather
than recruitment of labor through the State
Employment Security Commission as has been the case
in the past. The purported reason for the change in the
recruitment method was the stepped-up-enforcement of
housing regulations by the United States Department
of Labor.
Wisconsin
The number of seasonal workers in rural industries
declined in Wisconsin from 1968 to 1969 according to the
State Employment Service. The number of rural food
processing in-plant workers averaged 10,811 in the
1968 and 10,190 in 1969, while plant employed field
workers averaged 2,135 per month in 1968 and 1,710
in 1969. Similar drops were reported in other rural
work categories.
Mid-Continent
A telephone inquiry to the U.S. Department of Labor
Regional Office of the Farm Labor Service revealed the
following information on clearance orders:
CLEARANCE ORDERS FOR INTERSTATE RECRUITMENT
!"*-* I=t
-""
"™- "« j ss
'•»' *
!'":£■ £ .«o j !:":
»i«™*.. «— . .370. 3/1. | l.S
In Michigan and Ohio the tendency is toward more
workers per order. The reason for this is not know at
this time.
The other four mid-western states show a decline in
both the number of workers recruited and the number
of orders placed. However, the number of workers
recruited seems to be higher than can be employed if the
information on mechanization properly reflects the
decline in jobs.
Last year gave ample evidence of what happens to
the migrants when recruitment is higher than jobs.
Unless welfare agencies in the state are prepared to
assist the unemployed in a meaningful way, the depriva-
tion of the migrant is horrendous.
NOTE : Just prior to final editing of this report, MRP
again checked with the United States Department of
Labor, Farm Labor Service, in the Chicago region and
learned of remedial steps taken to alleviate the
anticipated problems in Michigan and the other mid-
Continent states. These were:
1, Establishment of a regional coordinating committee
composed of representatives of various agencies in-
cluding United States Department of Labor; Hous-
ing and Urban Development; Agriculture; Trans-
portation ; Health, Education, and Welfare to assist
states in working with migrants.
2. Worked in cooperation with the Texas State Em-
ployment Service to alert migrants not to leave
Texas without a definite job placement .
3. Developed a special daily reporting system in- each
state to determine amount of surplus farm labor
available to enable the regional Department of
Labor to take corrective action.
4. Encouraged the Governors of each of the states to
require the State Departments of Welfare to accept
"self-declaration of income" from migrants for cer-
tification for food stamps for at least the first
thirty day issuance of food stamps.
5. Staff from a United States Department of Labor
special research program will be retained to refer
migrants to all available welfare programs.
Mid-March 1970 estimates of unemployment among
migrants in Florida was placed at about 24,000 by the
indigenous groups and the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity funded migrant projects. Leaders of the in-
digenous groups interviewed by MRP staff indicated that
when work was available, it was for a few hours per day.
and only for two or three days per week.
Reports from state officials centered on the difficulty
of recruiting labor for these short-term, part-day jobs
and not on the problem of unemployment migrants
faced. As a result, conflicting information, one group
stating a labor shortage, the other a labor surplus was
released. Therefore, no planning was done to either
determine the extent of the problem nor to attempt
solutions.
Mechanization and weather have reduced the man-
hours and man-days required to harvest the crop. For
the migrant, who is accustomed to and needs several
weeks of work in the winter and spring in the homebase
area, steady jobs are difficult to obtain. To the Em-
ployment Service recruiting for short term field jobs,
available jobs are not being filled. This is caused in
part because the migrant looks for the better job, and
partly because the offered work site is often so far from
his home that he must leave his family in order to
accept the job. It is also difficult and expensive for him
to maintain two homes. Additionally, he is often un-
skilled in the crop for which he is recruited and trans-
portation may be a problem.
As a result of this conflicting information or perhaps
perspectives — i.e. one report emphasizing that a job
shortage existed whereas another group argued that, in
reality, a labor surplus existed and was under-utilized —
conflicting information is available- to the public and
regulatory agencies concerned with the affairs of mi-
grants. For the State Employment Service, attempting
to fill "hard-to-place" jobs, there was a labor shortage.
Their solution to the problem was to recruit outside
labor from other states.
Texas
Mid-March contact with indigenous groups residing in
the Rio Grande Valley, indicated that only 12"; to 15% of
the migrants in the area were working at the time
of the interview. Of these workers, 70% were working
a 40-hour week, 30°'. a 20-hour week. Approximately
67,000 persons were unemployed at the time of our
contact. Leaders of indigenous groups indicated that
more migrants than ever before would enter the stream
in the summer of 1970.
4930
New York
The Migrant Research Project grantee reports they are
expecting a crisis situation in June, 1970 with an over-
flux of migrants coming up from the south. There will
be fewer jobs available due to greater mechanization,
especially in potatoes. They also report an over-recruit-
ment for the coming summer.
Other Data Gathered by MRP
In the course of distributing emergency food and
medical monies in the home-based states of Florida and
Texas when migrants were in the area, other informa-
tion was obtained — information which corroborates our
view that an employment and hunger crises will develop
during the summer of 1970. MRP spent funds at the
rate of $2,000 to $4,000 per day feeding people over a
seven-day period. During the period when the migrants
were in the above two homebase areas, the amount of
money disbursed to individuals ranged from 20 cents to
$1.00 per day per person.
Based upon food monies disbursed and information
gathered in the informal contacts and survey efforts
described above, it is the Migrant Research Project
staff's conclusion that mechanisation has had and will
have a serious impact on the number of jobs available
in 1970 in both the homebase states and in the stream
states. In addition, contacts with leaders of indigenous
groups in both homebase states of Texas and Florida
indicate that even more migrants than in previous years
will enter into the migrant stream this year, and that
fewer jobs will be made available to them. The chaotic
state of the market for migratory labor becomes self-
evident. In addition, if poor weather or mechanization
at the anticipated increased rate further upsets, an
already chaotic labor market, the problems facing mi-
grant laborers will be intensified manyfold. In effect,
they will be forced to rely upon outside assistance to
maintain their families while residing in the stream
states. Moreover, in many instances, their meager earn-
ings will not provide them with sufficient monies to
return with their families to the homebase state where
they reside. Even if they have sufficient funds to finance
the trip home, the money saved will be insufficient to
maintain the families during the winter months when
will enter the migrant stream this year, and that
limited work is available in those homebase states. The
result anticipated is employment chaos and hunger of a
dimension previously unknown in both homebase states
and stream states impacted by migrants who either
will be underemployed or unemployed during many
months of this calendar year.
Chapter 1¥
HOUSING: A FRINGE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYMENT
Migrant housing has long been a problem to migrant
and employer alike. During the recruitment of migrants
in Texas, workers are generally assured that the provi-
sion of clean, decent, and sanitary housing will be pro-
vided as a fringe benefit of the employment. Some
migrants reported they were shown pictures of housing
at the time of recruitment which simply failed to
materialize when they reached the work site. Operating
on the debt economy of migrancy and forced to borrow
against future earnings, seldom are funds available to
move on to search for other work sites where living
conditions are better.
Low-cost housing in both the homebase and stream
states is simply a myth. The Migrant Research Project
during 1969 conducted an intense survey of migrant
housing in the stream state of Michigan. The results
of this study are available as a seperate publication
and may be obtained from the Migrant Research Project.
The study is synopsized in Part IV of this report, and
is typical of migrant housing found in all areas of the
country.
In addition to the Michigan study, MRP conducted a
field inspection of migrant housing in Florida and spoke
to migrant workers in Glades County. Migrant workers
PROVISION OF HEAT
LAUNDRY ROOM
4931
still occupy housing that was constructed by the United
States Government during the 1930's as temporary units.
The cabins are small, with poor venilation, and are con-
structed on stilts, since the soil is of high nitrogen
content and easily evporates leaving the cabins awry.
The conditions in these camps which still segregate
anglos, blacks, and Mexican-Americans are deplorable.
The Glades Citizen's Association reported that
Pahokee Housing Authority had complete control as
to who occupied the housing. As bad as it was, it was
From— "CHILD OF HOPE"
Stewart and Sandage
A. S. Barnes, New York, 1968
the only housing available. New construction was under-
way in the area; however, it appeared the new cement
block structures were being constructed below ground
level and that spring rains would be a problem.
The report of the Glades Citizen's indicated that the
camp, occupied by Mexican /Americans, was determined
by the Pahokee Housing Authority to be unlivable and
was therefore condemned. Occupants were notified they
must vacate the premises. Since no other housing was
available, many of the Mexican /American occupants
were forced to enter the migrant stream and move up
north where labor was already in over-abundance due to
mechanization in Michigan, and poor weather in other
areas. After the camp had been vacated by the Mexican/
Americans, anglo families were allowed to occupy the
units. The only explanation offered by the Glades
Citizen's Association was that the residents of the old
camps were to be resettled into the new units upon their
completion!
Report on Housing Conditions in Migrant Labor
Camps in Minnesota, 1969
During the summer of 1969, Migrant Research
Project, in cooperation with the Migrant Action Program
of Iowa, conducted a survey of migrant housing in
Southern Minnesota. The survey was confined to a
small area, but the MAP agency indicated they believed
the results were typical of other areas in Minnesota as
well. The results of this survey are as follows:
"Housing and sanitation regulations covering condi-
tions in migrant labor camps have been in effect in
Minnesota since 1951 and were recently improved in
1968. The regulations are generally somewhat more
comprehensive than those set forth by the federal gov-
ernment which apply to camps where workers are re-
cruited through the Employment Security Commission.
Yet, not unlike many other regulatory agencies, the
environmental sanitation division of the Minnesota
Health Department has been slow in enforcing the
provisions of the law. The Department claims that, "As
in past years, each camp will be inspected by area sanita-
tion inspectors, employed for approximately 13 weeks
during the summer, and supervised by a full-time public
health sanitarian. Camp ratings will depend upon the
degree of hazard to health and safety. If corrections are
not made, the camp permit will be revoked." If a permit
is issued, it should be posted "in a conspicuous place in
the camp" along with a copy of the housing regulations.
The staff of MAP conducted a survey of nine migrant
camps in southern Minnesota to determine if the camps
did meet the state's regulations. All of the camps were
occupied at the time of the survey, and not one of the
nine had a permit posted. Nor had any of the occupants
seen an inspector during their stay in the camps.
All of the camps had a large number of violations of
the housing regulations, many of which directly
threatened the health and safety of the camp occupants.
Three wells were suspect since the water was discolored
and had a strong odor. In each case, the occupants
boiled it before use. But while boiling may kill dangerous
bacteria, it only further concentrates nitrates in the
water; and an overly high concentration of nitrates can
be extremely dangerous for nursing mothers causing
Nitrate Cyanosis or Methemo globinemia( blue babies).
In addition, more than half of the camps inspected fell
far short of the regulations in the provision of bathing
facilities and an adequate supply of hot and cold running
water. (See Table I.)
4932
As Table II indicates, the major violations were in
site standards, toilet facilities, laundry, and washing,
bathing facilities, and refuse disposal. Apart from the
water supply, these are the areas which most directly
concern the health and safety of migrant workers. On
the average, the nine camps inspected violated 46% of
the standards outlined in Table I. and not all of the
regulations were included. Some of the standards were
excluded either because of insufficient data or the lack
of necessary technical knowledge as when inspecting
sewerage treatment facilities.
The conclusions of this report are in agreement with
a recent survey conducted by the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
The newspaper survey found that "very few camps have
showers, and bathtubs are nearly nonexistent. Most
toilet facilities consist of outdoor privies, many in viola-
tion of state health codes. Furthermore, of 109 wells
checked last summer by one inspector, 106 were in
violation of the health regulations. Together, these
conditions indicate the need for far better enforcement
of the present housing standards in Minnesota.
3 33
tutvlf tor irlrwtn;, owlinj, 0
cMll be iMpctad repiUrly 9
5 56
Out UuMrr tub Tor mry l**nl)F-ri»<
UrhlUi. B.bUr»^»t.
ml
lifting tor jaxd «m am patmn;
| d | 3
eats
4933
In addition, an article in Minnesota's Health on May
15, 1969, noted that, "Since the new health department
regulations conform to the revised United States De-
partment of Labor housing standards, state health de-
partment personnel will make inspections for both
agencies this year to avoid duplication of services."
Normally, the Labor Department would make inspections
of camps where the camp operator recruits workers
through the State Employment Security Commission.
Several of the camps inspected were occupied by
workers recruited in this manner. Yet, as the data
indicates, the camps were in gross violation of both
Federal and State housing standards. The existence of
these conditions raises serious questions about the de-
cision of the Labor Department to delegate inspection
responsibilities to the Minnesota Department of Health.
Special Texas Employment Commission Project
In the summer of 1969, for the first time, the Texas
Employment Commission in cooperation with the Minne-
sota Employment Security Commission and other
agencies initiated the "Experimental and Demonstration
Interstate Program for South Texas Migrant Workers."
The program set forth two major objectives. First, it
was designed to demonstrate whether or not Texas, the
northern demand states, and the federal government,
working in cooperation with one another, could pro-
vide the migrant families with the services needed
while traveling in the migrant stream. These services
were to include assistance in job placement, housing,
health, and welfare services, and basic education. Sec-
ondly, the project was designed to provide the remedial
and /or skill training needed to facilitate the transition
of the migrant farm workers into other types of employ-
ment for that time when seasonal farm jobs no longer
exist. The underlying premise of the program was that
the declining demand for seasonal farm workers would
eventually leave Texas burdened with a large untrained
work force for which no jobs exist.
Twenty-five families were selected as narticipant';
in the program who came to Southern Minnesota to
work. For these families there were few benefits. Work-
ing conditions and total earnings were extremely low
this past summer due to weather conditions; and as
this report demonstrates, much of the housing occupied
by these families was substandard. Little was done
to counsel families on job opportunities, healt'i md
welfare services, or educational services. In sum, the
project did little to change the basic living and working
conditions experienced by migrant workers in southern
Minnesota.
4934
Waiting For Food Stamps, Immokalee, Florida
PART
4935
Chapter TT
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS TO WELFARE
The United States of America, in the past decade,
set out to abolish poverty among its citizenry- As a
nation, we decreed it against our policy and against our
own Pest interest to have 13 % of our population ill-
housed, ill-fed, ill-educated, and in ill-health.
To achieve our goal, we explored new ideas, examined
programs of the past, and launched our campaign
through legislation, education, and litigation to bring
relief to the vast numbers of people not participating in
our affluence.
Legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, the Economic
Opportunity Act, the Amendments to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Food Stamp Act, were passed.
Education programs were launched to have segments
of the population who possessed "know-how", teach
those of us who needed such knowledge and skills.
Citizens were educated to give knowledge and to accept
training. Government, labor, management, social, and
civic groups were asked to bring their expertise to the
problems. Citizens were asked to participate to the
fullest.
Court cases were brought to question the validity and
practice of administrative procedures for enforcing laws
already in existence. Some of the questions raised were:
Can a state withhold welfare benefits from a person
who has not resided in that state for a specific period
of time? Can a state terminate welfare benefits to a
person without first holding a hearing to determine
whether there are mitigating reasons against termina-
tion? Other questions were and will be asked.
Special Study of Food Distributed to Migrants in
18 Counties
Federal funding agencies with the responsibility of
carrying out federal programs through regional, state,
and local agencies are presented with almost insurmount-
able problems. Congressional intent determined both by
legislative language and legislative discussion may not
be clear, and may require court interpretation.
For example, the purpose of the Food Stamp Act is to
guarantee that " the nation's abundance of food
should be utilized cooperatively by the states, the
Federal government, and local government units to the
maximum extent practicable to safeguard the health and
well-being of the nation's population and raise the levels
of nutrition among low-income households " The
food stamp program may only be inauguarated "at the
request of an appropriate state agency" which shall
"submit for approval a plan of operation specifying the
manner in which such program will be conducted within
the State (and) the poltical subdivision within the
State."
In the early winter of 1969, the Migrant Research
Project made a comparative study of food distributed in
18 counties of ten states which are heavily populated
by migrants during given times of each year. The pur-
pose of the survey was to determine to what degree
migrants share in food programs either during the work
season or during the winter season. Based on information
previously gathered, it was obvious that the currently
administered food programs were not reaching a high
percentage of the migrant population.
The selection of states in the study included those
with the greatest migrant populations, either "home
based" or migrating into the state to assist in seasonal
agricultural work. The counties were selected for this
study based on the size of the migrant population, but
only included those where a food stamp or food com-
modity distribution program was in effect during 196S.
Figures for determining migrant populations in the
counties selected were as listed in the 1969 Report of
the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. Monthly
reports of the United States Department of Agriculture
Consumer and Marketing Services, Food Assistance
Programs, were used as the source of information on the
average number of persons assisted per month over the
designated period. The purpose of the dual period
analysis was to compare the level of participation in
food assistance programs during those periods of time
when migrant workers impacted the area to other periods
of the year when there were few or no migrants in
the county.
Florida and Texas were used for the home-base states.
Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon,
Washington, and Wisconsin were used as the "in
stream" states.
Of the ten states studied, Texas, Michigan, and Wis-
consin showed an increase in the average number of per-
sons assisted in a month when migrants were present.
In Texas, less than 16% of the migrants in the counties
studied were served with public food assistance programs
in the month studied. However, migrants fared better
in Texas than in any of the other stream states. In
Michigan, less than 2% of the migrants in any county-
studied were included in county food programs; in
Wisconsin less than .001 % were included. In the other
states, fewer people were fed during the peak season
than at other times of the year! Therefore, we can make
the assumption that few or no migrants participated in
public food programs in these states.
Follow-up studies were done in each of the studied
states during the course of the year. The purpose was
to determine how and why migrants, who are among the
lowest paid of all United States citizens, were not par-
ticipating in food programs.
Our study of selected state plans, and the implementa-
tion of such plans, show all too clearly that migratory
agricultural workers were not considered or planned for
in the development of state plans approved by the
United States Department of Agriculture.
This Government agency, through its tremendous re-
sources, has available to it information on: a) the rate
of mechanization in agriculture, b) knowledge as to the
timing of the harvest, c) knowledge as to long-range
weather predictions, d) knowledge as to projected skills
needed in agricultural work, e) knowledge as to the
number of workers needed now and in the future, etc.
Much of this information through U.S.D.A.'s research
4936
funds is made available to growers and growers' associa-
tions. None of it, seemingly, is made available to assist
migrant agricultural workers. Were this information
brought to bear in studying and approving state plans
for the distribution of food, most of the problems
migrants face in participating in such programs would
be eliminated. It is ironic that the migrant agricultural
worker cannot receive from the Department of Agricul-
ture sufficient concern to allow him to assist in harvest-
ing food for the world.
Lack of Planning by Department of Agriculture
A serious obstacle to significant migrant participation
in the federal food programs relates to the data relied
upon by U.S.D.A. in formulating and evaluating its food
programs. Based upon discussions between MRP staff
members and U.S.D.A. officials in charge of administer-
ing the federal food programs, the following seems
clear:
1) U.S.D.A. food officials do not consider nor do
they rely upon information collected by other
branches of U.S. DA. where it concerns matters
directly affecting the hunger and nutritional
needs of migrants. (An example would be the
availability of work to the migrants due to
weather and crop conditions or the increasing
use of mechanization, even though such informa-
tion is made available to the migrants' em-
ployer. )
2) policy-making officials do not require tabula-
tions or studies of migrant participation in
federal food programs in spite of the availability
of such information under the record keeping
and reporting requirements of relevant acts.
3) the statistical data gathered through the United
States Bureau of the Census and relied upon
U.S.D.A. to make policy decisions is inadequate
because the base of the sample used contains less
than 50,000 persons, nor does the data set forth
include a detailed breakdown within the category
of "Mixed Farm Working Force" of days worked
and wages earned on farm and non-farm em-
ployment The 1970 census offers little prospect
of a clearer profile of the special characteristics
of migrants as a population group. The decennial
census, including the 1970 survey presently
underway, is not structured to differentiate
between migrants and all other farm workers.
In fact, it would be impossible to do so since
Government agencies have failed to agree upon
a definition of a "migrant agricultural worker."
U.S. Department of Labor, The U.S. Department
of Agriculture, the r s. Department of Health.
Education, and Welfare, and the Office of
Economic Opportunity have developed independ-
ent definitions of eligibility for their various
programs with respect to a "migrant." At times.
there have been conflicting definitions developed
for programs within a Department. As a result,
the "migrant worker" is a "migrant worker" for
one program, but. at the same time, may not be
a "migrant worker" for another government pro-
gram.
Even assuming that better data collection methods
were employed by U.S.D.A., there are other institutional-
ized impediments to an effective evaluation of migrant
participation in food programs. There is no systematic
collection of information on an annual basis (e.g., a
yearly updating of ihe decennial survey) with suitable
detail to enable planning, execution, and assessment of
existing programs or the tailoring of programs to meet
the nutritional, employment, and other needs of migrants.
In short, there is a need to build into the data collection
process the utilization of social indicators — a form of
social accounting — to guarantee that the actual condi-
tions under which migrants live are recorded and to
measure the changes in those conditions over a period
of time.
Furthermore, since more than one department of the
federal government is charged with responsibility for
alleviating the migrants plight, there is a need to create,
an interdepartmental council to oversee and integrate on
a coordinated basis an effort to redress some of the
current and easily anticipated problems that beset the
migrant — e.g., his health and nutritional needs, dis-
placement by mechanization and generally uncertain
employment opportunities, and substandard housing con-
ditions — to name only a few of the ills capable of
immediate interdepartmental action.
Under the existing circumstances, it is submitted
that the Secretary of Agriculture has a clear legal duty
to develop programs in 1970 to increase substantially
migrant access to, and participation in, federal food
stamp and commodity distribution programs. It is clear
that the Secretary of Agriculture possesses sufficient
discretion to take positive steps by regulation or formal
instruction to abate significantly the hunger and nutri-
tional crises facing the many migrants in our country
today under either the food stamp or commodities dis-
tribution statutes.
FOOD STAMPS
Migrants generally arrive to harvest crops well in
advance of the season and need food to survive. Barriers
which made it impossible for food stamp participation by
migrant and seasonal agricultural workers served by
the Migrant Research Project last year can be catagor-
ized as follows:
(1) both home-base counties and stream-state coun-
ties are not prepared to service people other than
local residents
(2) extensive documentation is required of non-
residents both for certification and for the estab-
lishment of hardship deductions in income com-
putation
(3) requirements vary from county to county
(4) food-stamp out-reach workers assigned to farm
areas and migrant camps are practically non-
existent
(5) office hours vary from a few hours per week or
a few days per month to more reasonable hours
(6) food-stamp sales may be delegated to banks or
other financial institutions, keeping banking
hours
(7) emergency hours during the evening, weekends,
or holidays are practically unknown
(8) income verification for a worker who has many
employers and rarely receives pay stubs is almost
impossible; an alternative would be the Declara-
tion Process now being used by several states in
their assistance programs
(9) resources, such as work-related resources, e.g.,
a car or truck disqualifies a person from par-
ticipation in food programs in many areas of the
nation
(10) residency may be the cause of ineligibility for
food stamps since U.S.D.A. guidelines do not
specifically rule it out
4937
(11) there is no formal and effective complaint pro-
cedure to report failure to comply with a state
plan
(12) certification and eligibility standards do not take
into consideration persons having no income or
irregular income
(13) practice of selling food stamps only once a month
and not allowing for purchase at less than
the full month at a time, eliminates migrants
and others with sporadic income
(14) independent of its effect on the continued par-
ticipation requirement, of "lump sum purchase"
requirement works particular hardship on mi-
grants who have no steady source of income.
COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION
Commodity Distribution programs present many of
the same barriers to migrants who wish to participate
in this type of food program. Surveys and reports we
have studied indicate that:
(1) food distribution points are at inconvenient
locations;
(2) there is a consistent failure on the part of U.S.-
D.A. to allow O.E.O. grantees, indigeneous
groups or others to administer the programs;
(3) rigidity in administration of the programs as to
dates, place, and time of distribution, as well as
places of certification and recertification, elimi-
nate migrants from participating in the program ;
(4) income certification procedures force migrants to
verify matters not possible ; simplified affidavit
of certification could be substituted;
(5) general lack of uniformity in rules and practices
relating to certification due to absolute respon-
sibility for making decisions at the local level ;
simple delay in certification disqualifies a mi-
grant who has to move on, or may have work
in the interim. There is often up to 1 month's
delay between certification and distribution;
(6) income and liquid assets allowable varies from
county to county and in some instances, seem-
ingly, from person to person ;
(7) too frequently, county agencies make no pro-
visions for people who cannot communicate in
English ;
(8) transportation is a major problem for migrants
who must travel many miles to a distribution
center — (one county welfare director suggested
in an interview with MRP staff that if the mi-
grant had transportation money to go the 70
miles round-trip to the center, he had enough
money not to qualify for funds) ;
(9) lack of a refrigerator in which to store perish-
ables, prohibits migrants from participating in
the program ;
(11) food available is not consistent with the cultural
and eating practices of migrants — if the migrant
worker suggests that some food items will not
be welcomed, he may be told that he isn't hungry
and, therefore, doesn't need the food ;
(12) lack of education programs as to value of and
preparation of foods available;
(13) lack of available foods in many counties.
SCHOOL LUNCH
School lunch programs in stream states also are pro-
grammed for resident children and rarely have sufficient
funds available to provide for migrant children who
come into the stream states in the spring of the year.
Frequently, migrant children enter an affluent com-
munity and enroll in a school which had no need for a
school lunch program for resident children. Under
current regulations, budgets for school lunch programs
must be geared to a fiscal year basis and not to a
quarterly basis which would allow the school to accom-
odate the very special and seasonal needs which accom-
pany the impact of migrants. As a result, migrant
children do without lunch at school or use emergency
food money supplied by O.E.O. in order to eat.
Welfare and Health
The exclusion of migrants from welfare programs may
stem most immediately from the indifference of local
welfare administrators. However, it also flows from
restrictive legislation and budgeting at the federal and
state levels.
Based on income, almost all of the migrants served
through the Migrant Research Project, are eligible for
welfare. The major reason they do not receive categorical
assistance is because the father resides with the family.
In stream states they are denied assistance — even on an
emergency basis — because of residency requirements. In
most counties, if a dire emergency exists, the county will
provide the cheapest, immediate public transportation
to the homebase, but will not provide emergency assist-
ance. This seems to be true even in states where the
state office will reimburse the county up to 100% of
emergency costs at the end of the year.
Health care for migrants is virtually unknown except
through migrant health clinics. The services from the
clinics are limited, primarily to immediate and
minor illnesses and referrals. Limited funds are avail-
able for hospitalization in some areas. More clinics and
hospitalization could have been available through this
program had state health departments considered health
care of migrants more important than camp inspections.
Illnesses such as birth defects, drug addiction,
alcoholism, and mental health problems are fundament-
ally ignored by health programs. In counties where funds
are available to provide free health care at state hos-
pitals, welfare directors save their allocation for per-
manent residents.
Budgeting for hospital care, under the Migrant Health
Act, is based on 60% of hospital operating costs as
determined by audits performed by federal accountants
to determine allowable costs under Medicare. Medicare
audits do not admit charity costs as hospital operating
costs. Bad debts, however, are admitted as operating
costs. Under this regulation, if a hospital provides
charity to patients, up to 207. of its operating costs,
Medicare payments are set at 80% of cost. The Migrant
Health Act funds are then limited to 60% of the allow-
able 80 % , or approximately 48 % of the migrant patient's
costs. This means that the hospital, in this instance,
must assume 52% of the cost for each migrant patient.
If a hospital is to serve migrants under these conditions,
they must absorb the greater percent of the cost; or
must refuse charity patients and force bona fide charity
patients into the position of refusing hospital care or
acquiring debts impossible for them to pay.
4938
PART
4939
Chapter ¥E
NEGOTIATION FOR CHANGE
Lack of residency either in the homebase or in the
stream states has complicated easy solutions to the
common problems that plague migrancy. Low wages,
lack of decent housing, lack of organization, child labor,
language deficiencies, etc., are only results of the voca-
tion the migrant pursues and his lack of coverage under
the laws governing the laboring forces of the nation.
Efforts to gain inclusion under these laws have not
been fruitful. In recent years, many organizations have
attempted to provide support for coverage of agricultural
workers under the National Labor Relations Act. With-
out a political constituency of his own, the migrant
worker has been unable to negate the powerful lobbying
forces of the industry which employs him. Not only
does the migrant lack voting power in his homebase
areas, he has not had the benefit of being the respon-
sibility of any particular department of the federal gov-
ernment. Recognized by the White House Conference on
Food, Nutrition, and Health as being a special respon-
sibility of the United States government, this respon-
sibility has not, as yet, been recognized and dealt with
in an affirmative manner, by the Congress of the United
States. Our research has shown that the migrant worker
and agriculture have a vested interest in the well-being
heavily weighted the equation in favor of the agriculture
industry by the creation of the Department of Agricul-
ture and the many services available to the growers and
processors. Consideration must be given to extending
these services to the laboring force of agriculture and
accepting the responsibility for its well-being. People
are surely as important as crops. Lack of voting power
and success in passage of legislation which could alter
the pattern of existence for migrants by improving the
living and working conditions, has resulted in other
means for redress of grievances being sought by mi-
grant workers and by those concerned with his plight.
The Migrant Research Project has attacked the prob-
lem in three ways: through the courts, through testi-
mony before Congressional Committees, and through
participation in the structure of the White House Con-
ference on Food, Nutrition, and Health.
In addition, a major effort of MRP has been to enter
into negotiation at the Federal level with various de-
partments of government, to interpret to them prob-
lems and difficulties encountered by migrant workers
in participating in various Federal programs and receiv-
of each other. It would appear that the country has
ing benefit from them. As reported in Part II of this
report, one of the major problems in purchasing food
stamps was the inability of county welfare offices to
verify income or the practice of counting the value of
food purchased by MRP grantees as income used in
determining eligibility of migrants to participate in the
program. It should be noted county welfare officials had
authority, had they wished to use it, to certify hungry
migrants for food assistance for the first 30 day period
upon application without waiting for the income to be
verified.
Upon request by MRP the food stamp office of the
United States Department of Agriculture was helpful
in interpreting the regulations governing O.E.O. funded
assistance to the state welfare agencies. Additionally
MRP was able to work with the National School Lunch
Program to extend this program to cover many more
migrant children.
Since change through legislative and administrative
process is recognizably slow, the Migrant Research
Project has also served as co-counsel and provided legal
research in several court cases which if successfully con-
cluded will cause change to occur in both administrative
processes and within the peonage of migrancy itself.
Change Through The Courts
Acting of-counsel with the Colorado Rural Legal Ser-
vices, MRP has filed two companion cases in Colorado
challenging two provisions of the Sugar Act of 1948
The Act, among other things, controls the wage rates
of workers in the sugar industry. It applies not only to
picking rates, but also wage scales for such work as
weeding and raking. The cases challenge provisions
setting up boards to settle wage disputes between the
workers and the growers. These boards, set up under
authority given to the Secretary of Agriculture, consist'
of growers in the area of the board's jurisdiction Mi-
grants are not represented on the boards. The challenge
is based on the general principle that one party in a
dispute, or those closely related and with identical in-
terests, should not also be the judge of that dispute.
The second case deals with Dayment of wages through
crew leaders. The Sugar Act requires direct payment
to the workers by the grower employers unless the
migrant signs a permission slip that designates other-
wise. In this case the grower practice is to pay the
crew chief who is supposed to pay the worker. This suit
is based on the premise that the crew leader has oppor-
tunity and alledgedly does retain a portion of the pay
for his personal use and that the migrant has nothing
to say about whether or not he gets naid directly. This
is felt to be a violation of the intent of the law.
Access to Property Issue
Another legal issue where MRP has acted as co-
counsel on behalf of a migrant plaintiff is in Iowa.
Migrants throughout the nation are often denied the
right to determine freely who will visit them in their
migrant camp homes. This case is a freedom of access
issue and is based on the fourteenth amendment to the
constiution which allows for the right to peacefully
assemble and enjoy freedom of speech. The issue is
expected to first be heard in Federal court during June
of 1970. A successful ruling could be important for
migrants everywhere.
Access to the courts is an important tool for migrants
in all areas of grievance. Justice is often denied by
the discriminatory practice of the exemption of agricul-
tural workers from laws which govern wages, working
conditions, health, and safety. Favorable court rulings
will be important in altering the legislation which
currently insure these exclusions.
4940
Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
In New Bern, North Carolina, the Migrant Research
Project was asked by local officials and migrant farm
workers in the area to extend both emergency food
service and legal research to a group of seasonal agricul-
tural workers who, because of very low wages and
alledged brutality of crew chiefs, began a strike in
Craven and two adjoining counties against a blueberry
grower.
The emergency food assistance was provided by the
Migrant Service Center Project since the Migrant Re-
search funds were too limited at that time. This money
was particularly critical since it had the effect of allow-
ing both sides a "cooling off" period during which time
Duke University was able to arrange for investigators to
determine the fairness and accuracies of the charges.
The leaders of the strike were arrested and Duke
University, with assistance of the Migrant Research
Project, filed action in August of 1969 to obtain for the
blueberry pickers, minimum wage coverage under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. In 1967 this Act, for the first
time, included wage coverage for agricultural workers.
There are at least two side results of the strike and
subsequent court case. The first is a season case based
upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this
action, it is alledged that the merchants in the area
refuse to hire blacks in industry, thereby forcing them
either to remain field workers or migrate from the area.
This trend to out-migration of males results in the
agricultural industry relying heavily upon black women
and children for their low-paid work force.
The second result of the suit is the improved wages
and working conditions in the cotton and tobacco crops.
Avoidance of additional strikes and possibility of addi-
tional minimum wage suits was, no doubt, the impetus
for this improvement.
During the course of project involvement, Migrant
Research Project contacted the Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Commission, Migrant Service Center, Wage
and Hour Division, Department of Labor (Raliegh, North
Carolina), Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor,
church leaders, Duke Legal Aid Clinic, and the lawyer
for several persons arrested in the incident to insure
coordination.
Testimony Before Congressional Committees
Several times in the past year, the Migrant Research
Project staff has been requested by Congressional Com-
mittees to present testimony relative to the finding of
the project in working with and interviewing migrants on
a one-to-one basis.
Testimony before the House Committee on Education
and Labor, (Perkins Committee) centered mainly on
demographic information and more importantly the
administrative barriers to participation in existing fund
and welfare programs which deter migrant participation.
Attention was called to the conditions which exist as a
result of the number and realm of decisions left up to
the discretion of county officials and case workers. The
limitation arbitrarily placed on the number of times a
needy family in poverty can apply for and receive food
assistance and the impossibility of the certification
processes here pointed up as failures of governmental
agencies to impartially administer programs for the
welfare of all citizens. Additionally, the Migrant Mi-
grant Research Project staff's testimony presented facts
on the inadequacy of the food stamp program to provide
even the minimum basic diet as set forth by the U.S.D.A.
Without additional income with which to purchase
additional food, malnutrition and starvation is produced
by reliance strictly on government food programs for
subsistence.
The Migrant Research Project staff's testimony before
the Perkins Committee also pointed up the inadequacy
of medical services for migrants and the need for major
revisions in the Medicaid program to prohibit states
from imposing residency requirements of any kind for
participation in the program. In Texas, for example,
only persons already categorized as "needy" under the
Social Security program are eligible for Medicaid. Texas
as does some of the other states has no category for
"medically needy which c ould also make him eligible for
Medicaid. Therefore, a family with a mother, father and
sick children cannot receive medical attention under the
Medicaid program no matter how great their medical
need.
Other Assistance
Other assistance provided by the Migrant Research
Project of Congressional Committees centered mainly
around the preparation of material which has been
included on pages 31 through 33 of the 1969 Report
of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare — United
States Senate made by its Subcommittee on Migratory
Labor, Report No. 91-83 on February 19, 1969. This
section headed Nutrition again deals with the acute
problems of hunger and malnutrition among migrant
families. The testimony points up the problems ex-
perienced by migrants in gaining food assistance under
programs designed and administered for a stable popula-
tion. Those problems are compounded by the lack of
non-governmental resources, such as local credit or
private charity normally provided by communities to
their residents. Of the 13 million dollars appropriated
by Congress in fiscal 1968 for supplementary emergency
food and medical services, to increase participation
in federal food programs over a 6 month period, only
$350,000 was set aside for migrant families. In fiscal
1969, the total appropriation for a 12 month period was
only 17 million dollars for the entire population.
21
4941
FROM CHILD OF HOPE
PART W
4942
Chapter Z2JI- SPECIAL STUDIES
WORKER SURVEY SAMPLING
Basically, the Migrant Research Project was con-
ceived to gather two types of information, i.e., the
extent to which migrant workers and their families were
or were not receiving welfare assistance through estab-
lished channels; and the reason or reasons special
emergency MRP assistance was needed to meet their
food needs.
To clearly define the problem, it was essential to
gather more specific information relative to the re-
cruitment and employment pattern of the workers. To
gather these facts, it was determined to undertake a
sampling of workers in a mid-west stream state and a
far-west state. Iowa /southern Minnesota and Illinois
were selected in the mid-west since it was possible to
sample a larger percentage of the total migrant popula-
tion in the area including Iowa southern Minnesota and
western Illinois. The state of Washington was selected
in the far west. New York State was also included in
the east coast stream and was utilized as a control
group since no persons in the New York sampling
were certified to receive MRP assistance. It is interesting
to note the similarity between the New York State mi-
grant and the groups receiving MRP assistance.
The tables included in this report may not, in all
instances, total to the number of responses indicated
for the individual state. This is caused by the fact not
all migrants responded to all questions. The reader
should be aware that due to irregularity of employment
and working conditions not all questions were con-
sidered to be applicable by the migrant at the time of the
survey.
In the majority of instances, persons doing work as
migrant agricultural workers had been in the stream
only 1 to 5 years or had been migrants for at least
15 to 25 years. This raises the question of what is
happening to the young adults.
This situation may be caused in part by the rapid
mechanization of the crops in Texas and in part by the
green card holders coming across the border and dis-
placing domestic workers. At any rate, people are ap-
parently being forced into the migrant stream in greater
numbers. The United States Department of Agriculture
reported this trend in 1965 with statistics showing an
increase in migrants from 11% to 15% from 1949 to
1965*. Apparently this increase is still occurring 4 years
later despite the effort to enroll migrants in skill train-
ing programs to ease the transition from agricultural to
industrial employment.
The complete breakout for the sampled states is as
follows:
Hssds
of Households
1-5
5-10
wars
10-15
TSSXS
15-25
TSSJ-S
Illinois
2* Interviews 37*
21*
13*
29*
99 lntsrrlswi *?*
20*
IK
20*
Minn* lot*
M intsrslsw. 34*
it*
1»*
38*
Washington
222 intsrrisws 19*
7*
6*
6H
•O.S.B.A. Bolllt
in #12)
5<
34 intsrrla.ro
The abovs figures
following niiibtr of paopla and <
Illinois
585 pooplo
1.724 paopla
Southern Win
naaota
9*8 poopla
Washington
2,521 poopla
Nsw York 1,000 psopls 26 cross
In view of the more stringent housing standards re-
quired by the U.S. Department of Labor for the recruit-
ment of workers through the Employment Security Com-
mission, and in an effort to determine the practices gov-
erning the employment of migrants which affected their
ability to plan for and effectively provide at least
minimum daily requirements for their families, the MRP
Worker Survey Sampling surfaced other general infor-
mation related to the problem.
These generally fell into two categories: information
relative to recruitment practices and information relative
to wages. Responses are indicated in the charts below.
It should be noted the number of migrants surveyed who
were recruited through the Employment Security Com-
mission was so small that it is included under the head-
ing "other" in the chart.
l?<
as
From the above chart, it is easy to note the majority
of migrants are recruited in the homebase areas through
friends and personal contacts. The arrangements are
casual and very few workers actually are employed under
a bona fide contractual arrangement. Only in Iowa,
4943
where 13 of the migrants interviewed had signed what
they believed to be a contract, did the majority of
workers responding to the question indicate they had
received a copy of the document. MRP was unable to
verify its authenticity as a contract.
Since the majority of migrants indicated they had
been recruited to join a crew through a friend, the MRP
interview included a question to determine the widening
effect of such recruitment and if those workers being
recruited by friends were asked to recruit additional
workers either within their own families or among their
acquaintances. Although the number of responses was
small, it does indicate the enormity of the problem the
homebase states face in enforcement of legislation gov-
erning recruitment.
Nuaber of Recruited Woi-teare Asked to Recruit Additional Workera
Minnesota
The number of children doing agricultural field work
is generally accepted as being large. However, the
matter of actual recruitment of such children is a
question.
There can be no denying the complexity of the prob-
lem of adequate enforcement of the limited amount of
child labor legislation which could protect migrant chil-
dren. Part of the solution lies in the recruitment process.
The MRP survey of migrants asked if children were
being recruited either over 14 years of age or under 14
years of age. Responses were as follows out of 416
returns:
Number Recruited Ages Asked Proof Required
Leas than 1** - Over 14 Ye
157 189
A loan against future earnings is most often the only
"ticket" a migrant has to his seasonal employment. To
get to his work site, he must borrow from the employer.
The MRP survey in the target states, however, in-
dicated this practice may be undergoing a change. In
Iowa, for instance, out of 99 responses, 79% indicated
they had not borrowed from the upstream employer to
get to the work site. Of the 21 who had borrowed trans-
portation funds, only 13 indicated they had signed a
promisary note for repayment of the loan. In Minnesota,
557. of those interviewed indicated they had not been
forced to borrow travel money. However, of the
Minnesota migrants responding, 61 % or 23 heads-of-
households borrowing from the employer indicated they
had signed promissory notes. In Washington, it was
practically evenly divided between those who found
it necessary to borrow money and those who did not do
so. Only 49°* or 37 heads-of-household negotiated a
travel loan; of these 72 % had not signed a note. The
situation was similar among the New York group where
63% or 22 responding did not borrow money for travel.
When loans were made 80 % indicated they had not
signed a promissory note. In Illinois, no migrants inter-
viewed indicated they had borrowed funds for travel.
However there were only 18 responses to the question.
MRP is unable to draw any conclusion as to this trend
and what alternatives there may be developing for re-
sources. Certainly MRP was not able to determine that
greater numbers of migrants were finding winter em-
ployment in the homebase areas; indeed the reverse was
true. However, this could be a partial indicator of the
impact being made by stipended adult education training
programs. It may also be the result of a change in mode
of transportation and size of crews. This would seem
to be substantiated in part by information received from
the Chicago Regional Office of the U.S. Department of
Labor who indicated job orders received are being placed
for larger, but fewer crews for 1970. Those traveling
may be traveling by truck vs. family automobile.
It is commonly believed there are certain guaranteed
prequisites enjoyed by migrant workers such as free
housing, utilities, interest-free loans, etc. In order to
determine the way promises and guarantees were being
made against those benefits actually received, migrants
were asked to list recruitment promises. These have
been tabulated as follows in the target states:
4944
Recruitment Incentives Received as Promised
(Percentage of those Responding)
Illinois
Iowa
So. Minnesota
Washington
New York
Yes
100*
81*
71*
97*
12*
19*
29*
3*
88*
Normally, working people in this nation enjoy regular
pay periods. In order to determine the pay intervals
available to migrant workers which can provide funds to
enable families to participate in food programs, the MRP
survey defined the time sequence of pay periods in the
target state areas.
The question determined not only the intervals between
pay periods, if regular pay periods were established,
but also whether or not pay records were kept and if
so, by whom. Results were as follows:
■aSJ P«y»»nt Practical
Migrant Earnings Credited and Paid
One Family
Member Individual
Illinois
Iowa
So* Minnesota
Washington
New York
totals
75
20
112
_15
18
There can be no doubt that migrant workers are not
receiving credit for their individual earnings in the
target areas surveyed. Without doubt, the failure of
employers to maintain and provide adequate records of
earnings to individual migrant workers decreases the
number of needy migrants able to be certified for food
programs for which they may be eligible.
It is also important to persons applying for food assist-
ance to not only show proof of income, but also to be
able to provide proof of various deductions from gross
pay which may be counted as hardship deductions in
applying for food assistance. In all instances in the
target areas, migrants reported deductions were made
from their gross pay. The majority of workers surveyed
felt the deductions made were fair as they understood
the conditions of their employment.
Hindi
se
52 1 1
83 7 1
S9 62 4
L0
29 25 71
Out of 400 responses, the table indicates that when
the migrant was aware of written records being kept
regarding the amount of his earnings, these records were
kept by the grower and subject to the grower's control.
Less than 50 1 of the workers had records of their earn-
ings which explains part of the difficulty in applying
for welfare and food assistance even when they were
eligible for such assistance. MRP was not able to deter-
mine if the records maintained also indicated hours
worked in order to determine the hourly rate actually
earned in relation to the minimum wage hour even in
those instances when it was applicable.
The practice of family earnings being credited to the
head-of-the-household causes major difficulties for work-
ers in accruing social security credits for old age assist-
ance. It does enable the grower to maintain a simplified
bookkeeping system and requires less reporting on his
part to the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security
Administration, and appropriate state and local agencies.
It conceivably could also cause families to be disqualified
from participation in food programs in those instances
where minor sons and daughters were married and could
be certified as a family unit if separate cooking facilities
or schedules could be maintained.
To determine the incidence of paying wages to one
member of the family rather than to each individual em-
ployee as is generally required of industrial employers,
migrants were asked to respond on the practice:
The final question asked in the special worker survey
sampling was designed to determine what was the effect
of underemployment or days lost on the earnings of
migrants. As expected, all workers reported days not
worked. Indeed, this was the major reason reported for
the need of special MRP food assistance as indicated in
the accompanying chart:
Raaaona
Tor
R-qu-ntljw
HRP
■ U.01
a lown/frlnn.
Waablarton
Vortc Rot Raady
U
77
Vithout Fund*
1
87
Ho Job
U2
1
33
V
46
Va«*a told Back
63
6
Dabt to Gromr
Vaathar
1
21
Car Rapalr
a
1
17
Bonua End of Soaaon
Oiaablod
Bonua Danlad
Wa«aa
Om Cm Uad.r
Othar
25
4945
The number of migrants reporting irregular em-
ployment and periods of unemployment during the peak
work season was 948 workers. This irregularity of em-
ployment and underemployment during the peak earning
season limits the amount available to workers for the
purchase of food. In addition, workers were often kept
from participation in the food stamp program by two
practices employed by growers and processing companies
to enable them to guarantee credit to local trades people
and to defer capital expenditures of growers until the
end of the season when crops are harvested and sold.
These practices are the establishment of credit or charge
accounts with local grocrs or the issuing of private food
coupons, the value of which is deducted from gross pay
and redeemed from local merchants by the growers. (See
section on food coupons.)
This practice disallows the bonus purchasing power of
Federal Food Stamps.
HMdi-of-Howhold
Dm of t>mrolOT»nt«
mineli 150
Io»» 260
S. MilBMSOt* 1C4
WMhlngton ZL5
B*w Torir.'' 230
•ton D«r»
The worker survey form surfaced many of the con-
tributing causes of migrant poverty. Because all tabu-
lations were done manually by staff, it was necessary
to cut off further tabulations on September 30, 1969.
Therefore, not all samplings are included in this report.
However, indications are that final tabulations will not
deviate greatly from the reported percentages.
4946
Chapter ZHIE
SPECIAL WISCONSIN PROJECT
The conclusions reached by the U.S. Senate Subcom-
mittee on Migratory Labor in reports published in 1969,
made it apparent that further research and more
accurate documentation would be necessary before solu-
tions to the problems brought out during the committee
hearings could be found.
The Migrant Research Project of the Manpower Evalu-
ation and Development Institute and the Division of
Family Services, Department of Health and Social Ser-
vices, State of Wisconsin undertook to provide the docu-
mentation necessary. The demonstration study was
initiated in the summer of 1969. The purpose of the
study was to provide a more specific indication as to the
extent and cause of the problems of hunger and malnu-
trition among the migrant families working in the stream
and to determine, if, under optimum conditions, migrants
could receive necessary assistance through existing pro-
grams as presently structured.
The Migrant Research Project provided funds for
emergency food services, when needed. The study in-
volved 6 counties in the central portion of Wisconsin,
where the highest cencentration of migrants would be
for the summer months. The total sample included 381
families, consisting of some 2200 individuals.
Final conclusions based on the data presented have
not as yet been formulated. A special report written
jointly by the Migrant Research Project and the Division
of Family Services, Wisconsin State Department of
Health and Social Services will be published within the
near future. Copies will be available from either agency.
It can be stated at this time however, that due to the
joint project the increase in migrants served in one
county alone by the food program increased 300%. The
increase in the other counties studied also showed equally
astounding increases. It is hoped this report will pro-
vide at least a part of the information needed to modify
the existing programs or to design new ones to meet the
specific needs of the migratory worker, compatible to
the goals for service presented in the Senate Subcommit-
tee report.
As brought out in the Subcommittee report, one of the
problems migrants frequently faced is hunger and mal-
nutrition. Unstable characteristics of the farming in-
dustry combined with encroaching mechanization dic-
tates the financial insecurity of the migrant group.
The project was conducted in Adams, Columbia, Green
Lake, Portage, Marquette, and Waushara counties. These
counties were jointly selected by the State of Wisconsin
and the Migrant Research Project because of the con-
centration of migrants in the area as well as the im-
plementation of three different types of food programs.
Counties with food stamp programs were Adams, Mar-
quette and Columbia. Commodity Distribution counties
were Waushara and Portage, while Green Lake county
had neither program at that time, but since the project
had ended, has implemented the Commodity Distribution
program. Additionally, the project utilized 6 other
counties as a control group. They were the food stamp
counties of Door and Milwaukee and the Commodity
Distribution counties of Oconto, Kenosha, Waupaca and
Dane.
The migrant families who participated in the study
applied for emergency food services during the months
of June, July, or August. The average size of the family
(See Figure 1) was six persons. The average stated
income was between $2,000 and $2,400. (See Figure 4).
The average stated monthly income for the preceding
month was between $300 and $400 per family. This rela-
tively high figure can be accounted for by the fact that
the migrants in the Wisconsin project areas accrue
approximately 49 % of the total annual income during the
three summer months of his greatest employment. The
balance of the annual income is accrued over the remain-
ing nine month period from both farm and non-farm
sources.
Project Pamillei
j Annual
Incoi
ne -
Paallv Sit.
1 of
>» or More
t
of fanlllos
j_
$999 or lese
2U
l.i. »
<1,000 - $1,991
71
39. OK
$2,000 - 13,999
83
*5. 6*
$J*,000 - or »ore#*
lta
7.7*
Not given total
93
•♦Top Income $6,000
It is quite evident, even from our preliminary calcula-
tions, that any consideration of a migrant's monthly
income out of the content of annual income is likely to be
grossly misleading. For this reason, the current food
stamp program and other resources of public assistance,
which have eligibility requirements based on monthly
income levels, are often not available to the migrant. In
Wisconsin, for example, the allowable monthly income
for a family of six is $350. Since the average stated
income for the previous month, according to initial cal-
culations, is between $300 and $400, it is conceivable
that some of the families could have been ruled ineligible
for services because of income requirements even though
their annual income was far below the index of poverty.
The figures on amount of expenses and financial com-
mitments incurred by the migrant families in the study
are not yet available. It would appear, however, that
one of the primary reasons for needing emergency
assistance during the summer months is because most
of the income is applied to debts incurred during
the previous year, or as a cost of traveling to the
worksite and cost of maintaining the work crew in-
stream. Although it was apparent that the weather
conditions were a major contributor to the problems
in Wisconsin last summer, there were undoubtedly other
variables which are emerging from the data, which were
also important casual factors.
An analysis of the data in one county where 313
families received commodity foods for a two-week period
from July 16, to August 1, 1969 revealed the following
information :
4947
Average Size Family
Number reporting debts
on housest cars, hospi-
tal etc.
Number with funds in
bank
Number receiving wel-
fare in Texas
6.1 members
111 - 85«
- $200.00
- $300.00
- $1,000.00
One of the target areas of the pilot study was informa-
tion on the number of migrants participating in welfare
programs and other existing services availab le, as well
as the emergency food services.
The most frequently received service by those mi-
grants included in the sampling, was surplus food com-
modities. (See Fig. 5). Not quite 50% of the migrant
families surveyed were receiving, or had received, sur-
plus commodities from the counties. The next most fre-
quently utilized service was the HEW Health Program in
which almost 207. of the families indicated they had
participated. It is important to note that other services
purportedly available to needy people, such as welfare,
Medicaid, School Lunch, Medicare, and Head Start did
not have a large migrant participation.
It should be emphasized again that the figures in-
cluded are based on the preliminary tabulations and not
intended to be construed as being statistically final at
this point. However, information tabulated thus far,
seems to coroborate the findings of the Senate Subcom-
*
_EU
mittee report. It would appear that, as suggested in the
Subcommittee report, there is a pressing need for modi-
fication of some of the existing programs, or to create
new programs which would be designed to fit the needs
of the migrant population. In the Wisconsin project, it
was clearly demonstrated that it is illconceived to at-
tempt to incorporate into present structures designed
to meet the needs of a resident population, citizens of a
mobile nature. This is true of all the major public in-
stitutions. It is especially true in welfare agencies. It
was also made apparent that further studies in more
specific areas are called for to provide efficient admin-
istration of any programs initiated.
Based upon the 1969 Wisconsin summer food project
and the difficulties encountered in its implementation,
it is the recommendation of the Wisconsin State Depart-
ment of Health and Social Services, Division of Family
Services and the Migrant Research Project that the
United States Congress enact legislation to ensure equal
benefits of welfare assistance to all its citizens. It is
further the recommendation that this be accomplished by
the enactment of uniform standards of eligibility and
benefits for all Federally assisted programs in all states.
Tabulations
The statistical data for the survey is presented in bar
graph form, based on percentages. All percentages in the
graphs have been rounded to the nearest whole percent,
and for this reason slight errors due to rounding may be
noted. Figures included in the tables are those figures
actually derived from the survey data. Formula used
computing the median for the income figures is as fol-
( N - )
lows: (1 + 2 FB i. ) All graphs were hand drawn and
( fp )
were not intended to be construed as anything other
than graphic representation from an estimated scale.
4948
Ko. of Fwlllo
300-399
40O499
500-599
>todie»r«
Hadlcild
Head Starl
it of Annual Zncoi
0-J.99
500-999
10OO-U99
1500-1999
Ago Croups by FuUioi
button- [monthly incowt)
lU p-:nT&-El n [
- Hi - _E>? BT1 it.--! (T^
F
4949
•10055"
90
>0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
26%
25%
JUL
LOO,
_£Z!L«
EL
rzn nrg.,
---.-.. ~—; Figure 6 n
Percentage of Migrants Receiving Emergency
■Food Services in Each County
100%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
i.O
0
'::.. : : r ::; :~ Figure 7 •-- :
Percentage of Migrants in Age Groups
13%
20 *
15*
12*
13
12
JC!lL_.tt*:
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B -- 28
4950
During the spring of 1969, MRP conducted a brief one-
week survey in six counties of south Texas to determine
why migrants in the area were not participating to a
fuller extent in the surplus commodity program.
Reports of hunger were widespread and requests were
repeatedly being made for emergency MRP funds to
feed migrants in the valley.
The survey was conducted by migrant workers over
a five-day period. No follow-up effort was made nor was
there any attempt to interview welfare workers to check
the records maintained by welfare officials.
However, the results indicated only one migrant family
out of 49, who responded in the door-to-door random
sampling were received food assistance. Reasons for
denial of eligibility listed by those surveyed were as
follows :
Didn't know reason for denial 18 %
Income too high 16%
Cut-off from further certification 14 %
Lacked proof of income 12%
Attitude of officials — too many questions 12%
Told to seek work 6%
Reason not clear 6*
Owned auto or truck 4 %
Lack of citizenshipM 4%
Told not sufficient food available 2%
No child in family — no commodities 2%
Did not apply 2%
Received 2 %
(Represents 49 samplings, 150 answers)
A breakdown of the eight families denied food because
of excess income reveals the unrealistic criteria being
used to implement food programs.
One head-of-household with 10 family members re-
ported he was denied certification on the basis of his
$1,000 annual income. He had no income for the month
he applied. A family of 7 persons with $3,000 income
was told the county had no more money for food.
A tearful mother of 8 children living on the $180
monthly pension of her husband killed while serving in
the Army was also told her pension disqualified her on
the basis of income even though this amount allowed
only $.66 + per person per day for total living ex-
penses; not sufficient to meet U.S. DA. requirements of
$.75 per day for a basic diet.
The amount of daily per person income available for
total living expenses for those denied assistance on
the basis of too high an income would be as follows*
SOUTH TEXAS SURVEY
Chapter JK.
If one were to carry this a step further and figure the
amount available for daily food costs as 20 percent of
available income, it is clear the enormity of the problem
faced by malnourished and hungry migrant workers. The
average migrant in the above table would have available
only 10« per day to meet his food needs. No economy
plan yet developed will meet this criteria.
* Rounded figures
LYNN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE, INC., PROJECT
Late winter and early spring weather in Texas has
been made more accute the usual need for food supple-
ment of the migrant workers wintering in the state
before the spring trek north. The Migrant Research
Project does not have available statistics too indicate the
actual numbers of hungry migrants in Texas. The Office
of Economic Opportunity made available emergency
food and medical services funds to local Community
Action Agencies and to the Title III-B Migrant Division
grantees in addition to those funds administered by the
Migrant Research Project.
It is interesting to note how closely the data obtained
from one of the other OEO emergency food grantees
and analyzed by the Migrant Research Project correlates
with MRP statistics. The Lynn County Project raw data
and demographic information of 149 families receiving
food assistance from that agency. Represented are 98
migrant families and 58 seasonal farm families. Their
annual earnings for the 12 month period of time prior
to March, 1970 based on self-declaration looked like
this:
F1IOLI 1UMMM - U —a
19Z
1*5
par Paraon par Day
Total Llylnit Expanaaa
it
(14) Not o requirement
Their declaration of earnings for the previous 30 day
period prior to their application for assistance, however,
more accurately reflected the extreme hardship felt by
the migrant families, most of whom were forced to live
on the little they had earned during an extremely poor
harvest season in the north during the summer of 1969.
4951
OMBJiaag oms norm pnioo prior to apflkatioi rat assctam
»300 12JO-4300 «1S0-»2SC HOO-»liO POO -o-
Of the 149 family units representing 794 individuals
reflected in the above tables, onlv 7 families indicated
they were receiving food assistance other than com-
modities, and only 23 family units were participating
even irregularly in the commodity distribution program'
This means that only 20"'. of the hungry migrants who
should have been eligible to receive commodities, actually
were able to receive any food assistance other than t'la't
available to them through the emergency food program
of OEO. Other assistance programs made an equally
poor record.
The size of the family and the ages of the family
members must be considered in determining the amount
of food necessary to maintain the family at a proper
nutritional level. From the above table, it is easy to
note that only 5 families had an income greater than
$300 prior to the month when a request for assistance
was made. Of these 5 families, 2 had 11 members in
their household, 2 had 10 members each in their house-
hold, and the other had 6 members.
An analysis of the 17 families who declared they had
no earnings or income during the 30 day period prior to
application for assistance revealed 1 with 10 family
members, 3 families with 9 members, 3 with 7 members.
All but 5 of these 17 families indicated they had applied
to public welfare for assistance, but had been rejected
for a variety of reasons. One family with 5 members
were told they could not receive assistance because the
size of the family was too small to qualify for the
program! Another family with 7 members, headed by a
20 year old unmarried son had been without food for
5 days. Still the boy was told by the welfare officials
that he should work to support his family. Some of the
families who had not applied for assistance from public
welfare indicated they had not done so because the
welfare officials spoke only English and they understood
only Spanish. Others did not have the necessary trans-
portation available to pick up the commodities. A num-
ber of the no income and low-income families reported
they had been refused assistance by the public welfare
officials because they were MIGRANTS !
A look at the annual income of the 17 families who
listed no income for the 30 days prior to application for
emergency food varies from $500 for a family of 7
persons to $3,800 for a family of 5 persons. One family
of 9 persons, with 3 persons over the age of 16 years,
had an annual income of $1,000; while the other two
families who listed 9 members each, (with only 3 mem-
bers 16 years of age or older) listed an annual income of
$2,500.
Family size for the 149 migrant or seasonal farm
worker families who received emergency food assistance
from the Lynn County Community Development Com-
mittee was as shown in the following table.
UMTS BY NUMBER IN FAMILY
2-*
I* and orar
3
37
« »7 16
AGES OP FAMILY MEMBERS
0
r*"-a
0-5
6-15 16-21 22-** »5-
.6* 65 .
PERCENTAGE OP MIGRANT FAMILIES SURVEYED PARTICIPATING IN PROGRAMS
Food School Social Haad-
Aaa't CoBMQdltT Lunch walfara Sacurltv Start
Even though the School Lunch program made the best
showing, many of the students indicated they were
receiving a reduced price lunch, or that they were
allowed to receive school lunch on credit, but that when
a family member was able to find work, they must repay
for lunches received. Still other families who applied for
free school lunches were turned down because the school
system had exceeded their set quota of students who
could participate in the school lunch program.
A difficulty experienced by many of the elderly
migrants was lack of citizenship. On woman of 66 years
of age was being supported by her 20 year old grand-
daughter who had an annual salary of $ 1,500 and listed
only 70 income during the 30 day period prior to apply-
ing for emergency food assistance. She was denied old
age assistance because of her lack of citizenship even
though she had been a resident of the United States for
60 years!
All in all the reasons for denial for public assistance
were many and varied. One family was certified for
participation in the comodity distribution program and
received foodstuffs twice, however, the eligibility was
cancelled when the weather turned "nice" They were
told that as long as the weather was "nice" they could
not receive 'help".
One of the most heartbreaking reasons given for
denying assistance, was to a family of 9 persons, headed
by a 40 year old male with 6 children. His wife's sister
lived with the family unit. Welfare officials purportedly
told the family that in order to receive assistance, they
would have to ask the sister to leave their home since
this added to their expenses. Assistance would not be
granted any other way !
Year Round Assistance
Because the Migrant Research Project is a national
project, it was possible to trace some travel and earning
patterns of several of the families who required emer-
gency food assistance both while in a stream state and
while in the homebase state during the winter.
Typical of these was the family headed by 40 year old
W V who worked the asparagus
fields in Southern Minnesota in 1967.
This 10 member household wintered in Plainview,
Texas and were recruited through the Texas Employ-
ment Security Commission on April 21, 1969. The official
U.S. Department of Labor form No. 369 (see copy) lists
4952
6 workers in the family ; none under the age of 16 years.
The family enrolled their young children in a Day
Care, Headstart, and Little I Center operated by an
MRP grantee.
The father listed his annual income for the previous
year at $1,000 at the time they began picking asparagus.
Because every hand counts for both migrant and company
when the "peak season" began, everyone in the family
with the exception of the 2-year-old and the 7-year-old
worked. It is interesting to note the ages of the family
members as listed on the family history sheet of the
school center. In actuality, two of the "workers" were
under the age of 16 years and not "over 16" as
certified by the U.S. Department of Labor (see photo).
The family also listed 7 members as being workers with
the school center. Mr. V in responding to the
MRP worker survey, stated that his children were re-
cruited by the Employment Security representative, that
he was not asked their ages, and that they were promised
the same rate of pay as the adults in the family. The
school records showed that only the 4 youngest children
enrolled at the center; the 12 and 15 year olds did not
enroll.
A further inspection of school records show all too well
the effects of the life style patterns of migrant children.
P , age 11, was tested by school officials and
found to be in the 3rd grade. His parents stated he had
attended school only 4 months the past year. In seven
weeks he improved one whole grade in his Bote! Reading
Test.
J , age 8, placement test indicated this child
operated on a first grade level and did not yet know
her alphabet. Socially withdrawn, at school she played
mainly with her sister. Difficulty with the English
language.
M , age 7, school records indicated this child
was rather withdrawn. Wrote her teacher, "Much of the
time she just sits, too tired to do much of anything . . .
I discovered with 6 brothers, she has to get up very
early to help around the house. This could be the main
reason for her 'laziness.' I try to see the she rests every-
day and she usually falls right to sleep."
L , age 2, understood very little English.
Adjustment to other children difficult at enrollment,
soon he played well with others. By the end of the term,
he became aware of sizes, shapes and colors.
At the time of recruitment, Mr. V signed a
promisory note and was given a cash advance of $300.
The family was promised rent-free housing, free medical
attention, and company issued coupon books which
were redeemable for food. Deductions were taken from
his weekly check, however, he rarely undrstood what
these deductions were to cover.
On July 4, 1969, the family left the asparagus fields. It
is believed they returned directly to Texas. However,
on April 13, 1970, the V family again sought
and received food assistance from the MRP grantee.
At this time they stated Mr. V was unable to
find work and his earnings for the previous 12 month
period was $1,300!
AGMCUtTimi r.C--^.i SCHEDULE
"&. w< JZ&S
?£r
<:-?hir.
Vltt-
3£ j;;:;
P.O. iziuivn It I .SB f. £"
,V,f?
r.c..:. /:*>£* A.
□,.«.
</£#- *":? -■?.£«
D •■ >~ £3^- «•
-JZ
j" <-•
Z3*g
~£-
_i£
m /
rW- 9tlZ> <••.». ptr.hyAr'm.T-*. . MM
— iri
p^
■--
SSS^'iSi
-.. ..,.
"*'
gr
*" '■."■*""*.. '_"" |
— ;
'-■?;
'~
—
SB
MS
S
»
;.:
z
„.,..
'£•
•s
..,.'
~T.
E
5.
/-/
<!-JI
Ihsioasr caop&
-"-•"
".';;.(
1
rfO£
i-<:-
Qsuotenfio Seaniiia Co.
Ci'jztcnn:-. niinn.
.T;;'7-<'-5/ -7.-70"
V
Hon
:V/C
M
fy**<qas
II
6
5"
1
0
5
o
S
0
2
O
O
ff:
';-<■'
J>Z1
Dkkand
4953
.&
C^?<u6/n
MIUKANT ACTION PROGRAM
Area Center-
Count y g ^
£2L r-^.-y </-?fe A> -
^/'3/6?
Location of Camp <- aa&mt*tUte££.
1/
-Date A,„v»ri X^^fr ^ ^?
Home »■«■ fsCxt-ri^rs-fJ'^*/*—! /o^st^, Date Left k.~.»Ql*/y 4f £ ' f
Seasonal Migrant /A Out - Migrant
Religion C^t^C^^C' Number of years in area L.
Social Security Number *r £-<f-~S^2 ~ ?-& -< ■? Citizenship ly •> •
Individuals i
n Family
Sen
Birth 1
Date j Age
Educational
Level
English
Fluency
Worker or
Non-worker
2/
S/
\}9
• **
A/<?
US
y
&■ ?<7
S^>
//
L,^-
$-
s*f.
\>7
?
l/<r~s
Ut/
*&/
^L
**f-
\u
9
S„
uv
<y
*t
/ <~
9
/<
US
/7
St
\/J
#
//
lAs*
J*
/I?
*fi>//*™\ //
>
//
^/
f
F
Jr,/«//?f/&
/sP*
r>
ASi*/
/*&
£■
J/n/mi 9
/&
it
A/tsi/
SS
"faint
1
— —
A//*/
-A*.
j^Skk -^i^A^SP
Family Income LS£&
Poverty Line fV"^
Amount Under ^^^"^
We Hare
Referral received
Referral sent
■
F
under 1
\ through, 4
/
-Z
&
i
16 Throueh 19
3^
20 and 21
22 through 44
s\s
45 through 64
6 5 and older
Total Workers ,.2^
Total Non -workers— It-
Months in area
Jan Feb Mar
ftptA^May >i J»n >ff
JuL
Oct Nov-
-_
^L
33
4954
Chapter X- SPECIAL HOUSING SURVEY
The conditions which migrant workers encounter as
they move from state to state has been described as a
serious crime. Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr., in the
forward, entitled "Crime in the Fields," of the 1969
Report by the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Laborl,
cites Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary in defining
what constitutes a crime - "a gross violation of human
law; any aggravated offense against morality." The 1969
Report, while considering the entire spectrum of "crimes
in the field" afflicting migrant workers and their fami-
lies, focused upon one of the most acute problems facing
the migrant worker: the home in which he lives while in
the stream.
The seriousness of the crime may be measured by the
number of people which are affected, i.e., the number of
victims. In 1968, approximately 279,000 people were
migrant farm workers2. Most of these workers travel in
family groups so that the total number of people traveling
in the migrant labor stream maybe as high as one million.
If the poor conditions of camps are as widespread as
studies tend to indicate, then nearly all of the migrants
are afflicted.
In discussing the problem with government officials,
both federal and state, it became very apparent that
despite the numerous surveys and reports, very little was
inside migrant labor camps. Although there was a general
belief that the camps were bad, how bad was not actually
known. The Migrant Research Project believed that it
was necessary to gather and present data which would
reflect the condition of the camps as accurately as possi-
ble.
During the summer of 1969, the Migrant Research Pro-
ject, with the cooperation of the United Migrants for
Opportunity. Inc. (UMOI) conducted an intensive survey
of migrant housing in the State of Michigan. Michigan
was chosen because of the large numbers of migrant
workers who enter the state each year in search of agri-
cultural employment. It is estimated that between 50,000
to 100,000 migrant laborers annually come to Michigan
from other states, primarily Texas, in search of employ-
ment. Approximately 3,100 camps, located throughout the
state, provide housing for these workers.
The purpose of the study conducted by the Migrant
Research Project was to identify and document those
aspects of migrant housing which could be corrected by
enforcement of existing laws and regulations. It was
believed that a major reason why the problems of migrant
workers have not been met is in large part, due to the
lack of specific information and statistics. Thus, a
methodology of research was devised which would satisfy
the objectives of the study.
Methodology
A simplified inspection sheet was designed which
would enable staff members of UMOI, an OEO Title III-B
project, to observe and record the conditions which they
found to exist in migrant labor camps in Michigan. Since
the OMOI has offices located in various parts of the
state, this enabled a more balanced geographical distri-
bution in the survey sample.
The questions on the inspection sheet were also de-
signed to provide information revealing the existence of
violations of the Michigan Housing Regulations promul-
gated and enforced by the Michigan Department of Public
Health as well as the Federal Regulations set by the
U.S. Department of Labor. Since most of the states have
enacted regulations similar to those of the USDL, the
inspection sheet was used in other states as well.
A table of random numbers was not used in the selec-
tion of the camps which were inspected because at the
time the survey was commenced, a total list of camps
was not available. A second reason was the time and
cost factor in preparing such a list. Futhermore, the
camps are spread throughout the state and are often diffi-
cult to find. When found, it is often impossible to get
permission from the operator to enter the camps. For
these reasons, the inspections were made on the basis of
information and knowledge of camp locations known to
the UMOI from their extensive contacts with migrant
workers throughout the state. No attempt was made to
single out the worst camps. The results of the survey
appear to be quite reliable. Since the questionnaires
were also used as the basis for inquiry to the Michigan
Department of Public Health and the Michigan Employ-
ment Security Commission, it is possible that more than
the proportionate number of "bad camps" are included.
To compensate for that possibility, when analyzing the
questionnaires for violations of federal and state regula-
tions, all doubts were resolved in favor of the non-viola-
tion.
By the end of the summer, 148 camps had been in-
spected, approximately six percent of the licensed camps
in Michigan. These survey camps were located among 23
counties on the lower Michigan peninsula where the bulk
of Michigan's migrant population are employed. The oc-
supant size of the camps ranged anywhere from six to
261 and the total number of migrants living in all of the
survey camps totaled in excess of 5,000 persons.
4955
The data collected from the camps which comprised
the survey group provided a firm foundation for analysis
of housing conditions in Michigan's migrant labor camps.
Before turning to a discussion of the findings, it is
initially important to understand the regulations set by
the Michigan Department of Public Health as well as the
federal regulations set by the USDA.
State and Federal Housing Regulations Governing Migrant
Labor Camps
In an attempt to protect the health and safety of mi-
grants recruited through state employment agencies, the
federal government established guidelines for minimum
standards of habitability of migrant labor camps (Title
20 CFR Sec. 620). These regulations apply whenever an
employer seeks the assistance of the state employment
agency (in this case, the Michigan Employment Security
Commission) in the interstate recruitment of workers in
agriculture, foods, and related industry. These regula-
tions, therefore, apply with particular force to migrant
workers.
According to the procedures set forth in the Federal
regulations, a grower (employer) who solicits the Michi-
gan Employment Security Commission in recruiting farm
workers from outside the state must state that the labor
camp which he operates conforms to the minimum housing
standards set by the USDA. No inspection or other proof
is required, although an inspection of the camp is re-
quired thirty days prior to the arrival of the workers. If
it is found that the housing conditions do not meet the
federal requirements, the employer will be denied further
recruitment assistance and the present work order will
be canceled.
The Bureau of Employment Security is given the duty
of enforcing the federal regulations and the power to
deny its recruitment facilities to persons who fail to
comply with them. Unfortunately, the administrative
structure of the Bureau of Employment Security ensures
confusion as to the enforcement of the regulations. The
state agencies affiliated with the U.S. Employment Serv-
ice are charged with administering the federal regulations
governing compliance by the camp operators. However,
the state agencies often have an inadequate number of
inspection personnel; and must, therefore, rely on the
camp owner's statement when they grant certification for
the camp and process the clearance order for the workers.
Often the Bureau of Employment Security relies on the
State Health Department to make inspections. Further-
more, in some instances, it is known that state employ-
ment agencies have failed to deny recruitment facilities
to persons who do not comply with the regulations.
The effect of cancelling the work order is often a futile
gesture since the workers are already arriving into the
camp or are en route. Consequently, the enforcement
scheme poses no immediate obstacle to the operator; he
is already guaranteed having workers to harvest the cur-
rent season's crop and, at the same time, is not under
any compulsion to make the necessary corrections to
bring the camp into compliance with the minimum stand-
ards. Furthermore, by the time the revocation procedure
is completed, the season may already be completed and
the workers are on their way again; off to a new camp.
Field observation would indicate that the enforcement
procedures available to the Bureau of Employment Se-
curity, either denial of recruitment facilities and cancel-
lation of work orders, is not an effective means for
gaining compliance. The fact is that many workers who
arrive into the camps were not recruited through the State
employment agency; and, therefore, the federal regula-
tions do not apply. For these workers, their only recourse
is to the Michigan laws and the regulations promulgated
by the State Department of Public Health.
The provisions governing minimum housing standards
on migrant labor camps in Michigan are covered by Public
Act 289 of 1965 and by the regulations promulgated under
that act by the Department of Public Health. Public Act
289 created the Agricultural Labor Camp Unit (ULCU)
within the Divisien of Engineering in the Department of
Engineering in the Department of Public Health which
was given jurisdiction to issue licenses to any agricul-
tural labor camp occupied by five or more migratory work-
ers. The Commissioner of the ALCU will issue a license
to camp operators only, if after investigation and inspec-
tion, he finds that the camp conforms to the minimum
housing standards which are set forth in the regulations.
As it was pointed out earlier, federal regulations es-
tablished by the United States Department of Labor set
minimum standards. States are prevented from enacting
regulations allowing less stringent regulations than those
set by USDL only in those cases where workers are re-
cruited for employment through the Employment Security
Commission. Otherwise, states are not required to set
any higher standards. Michigan departs very little from
the federal regulations and has adopted federal standards
almost verbatum. The inspection sheet utilized in this
study restated the Michigan regulations in the interroga-
tory and thus permitted an analysis of violations under
both Federal and State law.
The regulations themselves establish minimum stand-
ards of construction, health, sanitation, sewage, water
supply, plumbing, garbage and rubbish disposal. The
agency enforcing the Michigan housing regulations is the
ALCU. The problems this agency encounters in enforc-
ing the regulations roughly parallels those which are
faced by the Bureau of Employment Security in enforcing
the federal guidelines. One of the major problems they
face is lack of personnel. The ALCU staff consists of a
program director, six full-time regional sanitarians, and
six seasonal camp inspectors. This small staff is unable
to effectively police the 3.100 labor camps for code vio-
lations.
Although there are provisions in the Act for suspension
or revocation of a license, the time in which it fakes to
litigate these proceedings renders them totally ineffective
vehicles for enforcement. If violations are reported to
the Commissioner of the ALCU, he must set a hearing
and give notice to the camp operator at least 10 days
prior to the date of the hearing, before any action can be
taken. If, at the hearing, it is found that the complaint
is valid, the aggrieved camp operator may appeal that
decision to the courts and thereby gain a further delay
in correcting the violations. As pointed out earlier in
this report, by the time the process reaches the final
stage, the migrant workers will have probably harvested
the crop and departed for a new camp.
This vicious circle of ineffective enforcement is also
enhanced by provisions in the Act which allow for a pro-
visional license when the agricultural labor camp does
not comply with all the provisions of the regulations. A
temporary license may be issued for up to 3 months. A
second waiver may be allowed; however, not more than
two consecutive temporary licenses may be issued. The
camp operator who receives a waiver must formally agree
to a definite improvement program to correct the deficien-
cies that exist. Usually by the time he is required to
make the improvements, the workers have left the camp.
4956
Who is left to complain that the operator did not make
the agreed upon changes? After the workers are gone,
the problem in enforcing both the federal and state regu-
lations pertaining to minimum housing standards for mi-
grant camps in Michigan set the stage for possible code
violations. Attention of this report is now focused upon
the camps inspected to determine whether this was, in
fact, true.
Preliminary Observations on Housing Conditions in Mich-
igan Migrant Labor camps
An initial observation of the camps in Michigan con-
cerned the failure on the part of the camp operators to
properly display their licenses. Licenses must be dis-
played in a "conspicuous place" within the camp area.
Nevertheless, of the 148 camps surveyed more than half
did not have licenses properly posted. In addition, of
those camps where the license was seen, nearly a fourth
exceeded the maximum legal occupancy permitted under
the license.
The fact that many camp operators were not complying
with the simple requirement of showing their licenses is
indicative of the widespread violations which were found
to exist in the camps. More than half of the families
could expect to find themselves in camps with debris
about the grounds and with bad drainage — often standing
water, which, in the warm summer months, rapidly causes
an increase in the mosquito population. The camps were
generally supplied with an inadequate number of garbage
cans. Fifty-three (53%) percent of the camps in Michigan
were reported to have garbage cans not tightly covered.
The buildings, which in nearly three-fourths (75%) of the
camps surveyed are of the cabin type, were judged struc-
turally unsound or unsanitary. In nearly half (50%) of the
camps, the units had rough floors, uncleanable walls,
leaky roofs, leaky walls, wet floors, broken screens,
faulty doors and missing screens. Each of these defects
standing alone, create unsanitary conditions, when con-
sidered in conjunction with one another they aggravate
the problem enormously.
Although, admittedly, it takes a high degree of techni-
cal skill to determine whether or not water is safe to
drink, occupants of 15% of the camps surveyed felt that
the water supply was unsafe; judgment was based on the
color and/or smell, excessive sediment, and the fact that
a large number of camp occupants had become ill after
drinking the water. In one-fifth of the camps, the wells
were located within 75 feet of the privy, a source of
possible contamination. In three-fourths of the camps,
the occupants must carry their own water. In only 18%
of the camps was water piped directly into the living
units.
Over 75% of the camps surveyed had inadequately
lighted toilet facilities; one-fifth did not have a wall plug
in each room; and one did not have electricity in each of
its living units. More than one-half of all camps failed
to provide adequate yard and pathway lighting.
As the statistics readily indicated, toilets remain one
of the greatest hazards in migrant labor camps. More
than 90 percent of the toilets in all camps are of the
privy type. Privies were classified as unclean and were
located too close to where food is prepared or served in
39% of the surveyed camps. Well over half of all the
privies were poorly ventilated and less than one-fourth
were fly-tight or had toilet paper and holders furnished.
In an environment that constantly exposes the workers
to dust, dirt, mud and pesticides, less than a third of the
camps surveyed provided adequate laundry facilities.
Nearly one-third of the camps had bathing facilities which
were judged unclean and unsanitary. Another third of the
camps were without any bathing facilities whatsoever.
About one-half provided adequate space for hanging and
storing clothes.
Nearly 40% of the camps lacked any kind of heating
system. The regulations require that camps occupied
before May 31 or after September 1 be provided with heat-
ing equipment capable of maintaining a temperature of at
least 68 degrees. The temperatures in Michigan during
the summer months often are well below this. The heat-
ing systems which were provided generally consisted of
the cooking stoves and other systems which utilized dan-
gerous or volatile fuels, contributing to the fire hazards
already in existence. The Michigan regulations stipu-
lates that there be at least two means of escape in one-
story dwellings. Only 57% of the camps met this require-
ment. In addition, less than half were provided with fire
extinguishing equipment, which often was only a bucket
or hose.
Perhaps one of the most common violations documented,
although one of the most difficult to police, is that of
overcrowding. More than half of the parents with chil-
dren over six years old traveling with them are not pro-
vided sufficient privacy in the housing furnished them.
Migrant workers coming to Michigan generally travel with
their families. Recreation facilities are important for the
safety of the children, who often are left by themselves
in the camp while the rest of the family is in the fields.
Such facilities were absent in 37% of the camps surveyed.
One other basic finding merits attention. In those
camps housing workers recruited through the assistance
of the Michigan Employment Security Commission, viola-
tions were found to be fewer than in those camps subject
only to the Michigan regulations. Fourteen camps in the
survey indicated that the workers were recruited through
the federal system. The average violations for this group
registered 13.8 per camp as compared to 15.3 per camp
for the overall survey group. This indicates that when
the camps come under the jurisdiction of the USDL regu-
lations, conditions are somewhat better.
4957
DIARY
CHAPTER XI - DAIRY OF A SUGAR BEET WORKER
Following is an account of a young college student
who entered the migrant stream through the recruitment
process in Texas and worked in the sugar beet fields in
a mid-west state. The account is true and accurate.
The reader must consider that the writer is a 21 year
old male in his third year at Antioch College. Bright and
well-educated, the young man elected to enter the
"stream" to gain first-hand documentation of the reality
of migrancy- facts vs. fiction - and to determine if legal
or other rational remedies might exist for the migrants.
He traveled in a crew of 40 hands, plus children and
non-workers. Most were friends or relatives of the crew
chief. Travel was a private auto plus a large 1967 truck
with a bed of about 30' x 8'. The front half was loaded
with personal belongings, the back section lined with
benches which seated 15 to 20 persons. Their ages
ranged from 6 months to about 65 years. The trip took
about 44 hours. There was only one rest-stop of approxi-
mately an hour; even though the law required vehicles
transporting migrants stop from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m.
It is interesting to note that despite the intellectual
capacity, knowledge of resources, and the certainty that
he could leave the crew whenever the situation became
unendurable, that the young man became captive of the
same fears of reprisals, and was immobilized by the con-
fusions and complexities of their situation to the extent
that he, no more than the migrants, could take positive
action to alleviate their plight.
Additionally, weekly reports discussed other grievances
encountered by the workers as indicated in the following
letter written on June 24:
"We were not told exactly how many rows to an acre —
we were not told how to account for the difference in row
length when figuring acreage — we were not told the
grassy section would be paid differently (and still don't
know how much) — we were not instructed to work differ-
ent sections differently, but do know that more or less
work was required to clean up different sections. The
shorter rows we were required to do for nothing."
From notes written while and after it happened, I'm
going to try and reconstruct the last problems we had
with the in B , M_
Background:
Our crew was supposed to work for at
$1.80 an hour doing weeding and spot-thinning behind the
new thinner. There was an unseasonable amount of rain
during our first three weeks there, and we were thus pre-
vented from working a good deal of the time. Those days
that the weather did permit us to work were spent doing
hoeing for other growers because told us that
his fields still weren't ready or that he hadn't been able
to run his new thinner through them yet. Initially, there
was a good deal of confusion about wages and how much
work there was to be done. (The crew chief had informed
the workers they would be paid $25 an acre with 10 rows
to the acre.)
On the 27th day of June we began work in a 200 + acre
field. We were to work under piece-rate payment system
at the "going rate" (or legal minimum) of $15.50 per acre
for the first thinning-weeding operation. We were told
Chapter XL
OF A SUGAR BEET WORKER
that the new thinner wouldn't work in that field due to
the corn stalks and other protruding elements in the field.
They had planned on using the machine there, and by the
time we started the field, the beets were already a little
bigger than the normal size, thus making the work a little
more difficult, a little slower. I was told by a worker and
a few others that I should do good work so that the sec-
ond weeding would be fairly light, fast work.
The owners spent $25,000 or so to buy their equipment;
thinner, weeder. etc. Through their own arrangements,
or through the company, they also worked the rig in the
fields of various other growers in the area. One of these
growers had promised his crew of migrants that he would
give them 200 acres of beets to work and that he would
be using the machinery in other acreages. The crew knew
and agreed to this before coming north and had made all
plans in accord with it and the grower has kept his
promise.
Sentiment is not so much against the machine or the
process of mechanization; it is directed against the in-
considerate manner in which the transaction is made; the
degradation which the migrants are subjected to by the
grower. The obvious fact that you are being used to
someone else's advantage is a characteristic of the mi-
grant life. But when this fact is not even dimmed nor
made less obvious by medium fair salaries, professed
grower concern, etc., it is impossible to view the situa-
tion without some bitterness.
During the period of time we spent working that field,
we lost almost eight days due to rain and wet ground.
The grower's policy is not to let his beets be worked
when the ground is the least bit wet; other growers in the
area leave the decision up to the workers. All the rain
added considerably to the size of the beets making the
job just a little harder, though certainly not exceptionally
so.
During the first hoeing, most of the workers pushed
themselves as much as they could endure, though still
trying to do very clean work -including scraping the bare
spots in the rows so that weeds won't appear there later.
Doing work this way requires considerable more time and
effort and is performed in this manner almost exclusively
for the purpose of facilitating the second weeding.
"La limpia" or the second weeding is held to be the
work which yields more favorable to the migrant. This is
the operation which makes his time and sweat in the first
hoeing worthwhile.
During our first hoeing in this field, several of us
wanted to make sure that we were going to do the second
hoeing there also. M remembered explicity ask-
ing A , the crew leader, three times. Each time
he was answered with a "tiene que darnosla" - he has
to give it to us. His affirmative answer assuaged the
doubts, and work continued.
Over a week passed after the completion of the field
without the second weeding being mentioned. We were
supposed to leave in four or five days, and several peo-
ple were concerned about winding up, taking care of all
our remaining obligations, etc. One of these remaining
was the second weeding, which we estimated would take
two to three days to finish.
4958
On Friday, June 18, six of us solos were woming in
that field cleaning up the small section where the ma-
chine was tested out and failed to perform well. We were
all working pretty close together, discussing our various
fields. I asked M if the grower was still going
to give us the second weeding there. A 's answer
to that question was discussed and some doubt over its
meaningfulness was expressed. A short time later.
E , the brains and force of the two grower broth-
ers, stopped by to see if we had found the rows alright
and to bring us some water. He told us to take six rows
at a time to finish off the section in one "whack". Be-
fore he left. I was asked to ask him about the second
weeding. When faced with the question, he began to hem
and haw in his accustomed manner for facing an unpleas-
ant situation. He hedged for awhile, but finally said
"no", and that he didn't intend for a second weeding in
that field, especially at that time. With that, he mounted
his tractor and drove off; his back being stared at bale-
fully. There soon erupted a conversation which literally
smouldered with the righteous anger which each of us
felt. We discussed how things had been going in the
state, how we had worked very hard in this field, and
how this was the only field remaining in which the crew
could earn some money. The possibility of bringing up
the issue with A , the crew chief, cropped up and
was quickly, sardonically discarded. Then he and his
manner of arranging things (or rather not arranging any-
thing) received the brunt of the hostility and criticism
for a few minutes. The discontent, anger, and dissatis-
faction that we felt was certainly not allayed any by the
work we were doing. Each of the six rows that each
person was working was very heavy with weeds, making
for slow, hard work — no difference in what we would
earn because we were working by the hour, but there still
was dissatisfaction with the grower telling us to take the
six at once instead of the normal two rows when there
are many weeds.
We continued working, still discussing the issue. Al-
though dissatisfaction, resentment, and anger were being
voiced, there was little thought as to what action could
be taken, now the situation might be resolved.
We returned to the camp about six p.m. and indirectly
heard that E had complained to A , the
crew chief, that we had been slacking off that afternoon.
This greatly increased the workers' hard feelings toward
him because it struck at a basic fabric — the worker's
pride in his labor. This is extremely strong among the
Mexican-American migrants. In the evening we gathered
together (the five singles plus R V (for-
tyish, married) and rehashed the whole issue. Special
emphasis was placed on how the situation developed -
largely due to the incapable handling of the contracting
by A — i.e., he received neither a written nor a
verbal promise from the grower that he would give us the
second weeding. He just assumed, implicitly, that the
normal procedure would be followed and answered our
later questions on that basis.
During the conversation, feelings became stronger,
better expressed, more self-righteous, and — still - with
no concrete alternatives considered.
The following day, Saturday, June 19, the entire crew
went to work a field in a nearby town. There the solos
lagged considerably behind the rest of the crew who were
working fast; their laughter and songs could not be a-
voided. But neither a smile, nor laugh, nor idle gossip-
ing could be heard among those few behind — just the
sharp sounds of cursing and arguing, and the pregnant
silences between them. At one point we discussed the
rate of speed at which people were working (led by
A ). The solos were determined to work slowly,
take an excessive amount of time to do a given amount
of work. One worker said it like this - "Damn the grower
— let him come and find us, his best workers, behind
everybody else. Then he'll have grounds for a com-
plaint."
At one point, several of the girls who were ahead of
the rest left their rows to help the laggards. This was
resented by those behind, and when the two groups met
the girls were told that "we don't need any help; we
could be out front if we wanted to. Go back to your rows
and work real hard for our lousy boss." They attempted
to recognize the good intentions of the girls, but this
along with a thousand other things was lost in the tremen-
dous communication gap. Division, resentment, anger,
misunderstanding were the order of the day, among the
workers themselves.
Shortly after the encounter with the "helpers," those
behind picked up a little speed and drew closer to the
main body of workers. The solos ourselves began to
separate also — e.g., M , feeling much more angry
and resentful than J M , consequently
worked slower. This division or estrangement or separa-
tion of workers was felt strongly by a few who were liter-
ally wracked with anguish at the situation. The problem
was not analyzed or subjected to or seen within any
logical framework. It was not seen as a problem to be
resolved resulting in one, two, and three, but rather was
just plain and simply felt. And it hurt.
As the morning wore on, interchanges among the solos,
as well as between them and the others, grew very in-
frequent. When they occurred they were usually tense,
bitter, non-understanding. Feelings were becoming more
internalized (possibly felt more strongly'') -but they were
still very visible in the faces, faces occasionally lifted
to look down long rows of weed-lined beets, faces which
in the same moment reflected something entirely different.
In the early afternoon, H , brother of E ,
and one of the growers, arrived and announced that he
was walking around checking over the rows, far behind
us — work we'd completed in the morning. At that time,
I was working with two or three solos and a couple of
girls somewhat behind the others. Upon his arrival, the
girls sped up and urged us to do the same — which, of
course, given the situation, produced a slowdown in our
pace. The girls out of earshot, the grower was subjected
to a good round of hostile cursing. We discussed whether
or not we should take our complaints to him and it was
decided that it would be better to talk with E ,
who had made the complaint against us and, also, had
told us about the second weeding deal. E , rather
than H . "wears the pants" or "is the brains" of
the two.
When H passed by us at a relatively safe dis-
tance of ten yards, I asked him if E would be
home in the evening. He said yes, and wanted to know
why we asked. The solos said to tell him that we wanted
to discuss a few things with him. Apparently H_
thought that he was being evaded and persisted in his
questions. We then told him about E 's complaint
and our feelings about it. H hemmed and hawed
a bit, and explained away the complaint as not very im-
portant, probably arising out of a slight misunderstanding
or bad judgement on his brother's part. He agreed that
we should discuss the problem with E if we still
wanted to. H then began to wax eloquent on their
labor-management philosophy which amounted to this:
When any worker employed by the Brothers was dissatis-
fied with any aspect of this total working situation, or
4959
felt that there were problems to be resolved, then he
should immediately go to one or both of the brothers to
talk things over rather than letting the problem build up
and causing more dissatisfaction or resentment. H
said this was their policy with all employees: tractor
drivers, mechanics, or field labor. Running out of steam.
H 's lecture fizzled out and apparently had no
effect on the hard reality faced by the workers. H
seemed to have been cheered a little bit by his eloquence,
and asked if there was anything else we'd like to bring
up. The fellows said "yes." I asked, "why aren't you
going to give us the second hoeing on our piece-rate
field?" No sooner were the words out of my mouth than
a very uncomfortable look appeared on H 's face,
and he began to walk away, saying that "hum-hum, we
have to talk that over; why don't you pass by the house
in the evening'" He said he'd see us later, and walked
away too rapidly. A man marked by uncertainty — by
fear.
Thirty or forty yards down the field, H stopped
to talk with J P The derision and con-
tempt for H gave voice to a few shouts to the
effect that he shouldn't talk with women about men's
business. He quickly moved on, got in his truck and
drove off. Anger, frustration, derision, contempt rose to
surface among solos. There was slight communication
with a few of the others, just briefly relating what H
had to say, and sarcastically describing how he ran off
scratching his head when confronted with the big problem.
We finished the rows we were in and a section of short
rows, then started back on some long rows at the side of
a grove. There we were out of sight of the short section
just completed. M H was somewhat be-
hind the others and stopped to look around. When he did
so he caught sight of H 'a truck on the far side
of the short section. He traced his steps back a little
and saw H talking with the crew chief. He knew
well enough what the discussion would be centered on
and was furious. He called me back and we stood, re-
moved, watching them for a minute. Then M
yelled across the field to the crew chief that H
had told us that we would work now and discuss later —
if so, then what the hell were they doing. On hearing the
shout, both of their heads jerked up. H glanced
over at us and almost immediately began walking to his
pick-up. M felt that we should go over and crack
both their heads a good chop with our hoes.
M and I picked up our rows and continued work-
ing, talking, angrily discussing that which had just tran-
spired. After we stopped talking, M fell quite a
bit behind. One of the girls with whom he had been
spending some time, finished her row and helped M
with his. When they met. there was a short exchange be-
tween them which seemed to hurt them both in which
M told her that he'd prefer that she not help him.
That day's weedy rows didn't have the determining voice
in whether a person lagged far behind - rather the deter-
mining factor was mental anguish and the degree to which
it was felt.
About one and one-half to two hours later, M
asked if I wanted to leave, that he was going back to the
camp. Listening to the tone of his voice and looking at
his face, I judged that it would be no escape from what
he was feeling and would prefer to continue working than
sitting around in that state of mind. I just answered no
with a shake of the head and we all continued working
until we all finished for the day, about 6:00 p.m. - very
little talking.
In the evening we discussed the situation in the trailer.
Present were the five solos, R V — and
three or four other boys. Feelings and discussion were
strong, forceful. General feeling of the guys that evening
- disgust, helplessness, separation, despair, and some
anger. I knew that we had to confront the grower some-
time and asked M later in the evening if he wanted
to go and received the expected answer — "If you want,
let's go." Better to wait, it seemed to me.
Sunday. July 20th. dawned fairly clearly and the mental
horizons began to clear somewhat also. The crew wasn't
going to work Sunday. There was less despair, but spir-
its were still pretty low. After washing and waxing the
car, there was nothing to do. In the early afternoon we
borrowed some money from R V so that
we could go "out." We drove to the lakes and spent the
afternoon watching the swimmers and skiers there,
the grower, was there and approached us as
we walked by. He began talking about the weather, chat-
ting, clearing his throat a lot. He was met with a few
very hollow answers and soon turned to return to his
charcoal broiler. Walking away, there was a good round
of cussing and sarcasm directed towards his generous
"non-offer" that we join him to have a bite to eat. We
saw his boat trailer and 1969 Buick as we left, and half
joked that if he gave us a ride in his motor-boat, we'd
forget about the second hoe problem. I mentioned that
he ought to be back around dark and that we might go
talk with him — met with very strong, "si, vamonos!"
Sunday evening about 9:00 or 9:30, we drove over to
E 's house - we being M and J
H-
M
. and the crew chief, A_
T (almost forced to accompany us) and myself.
I explained to the guys before we went that I should
mainly translate because if I acted as actual spokesman,
the whole issue would be dismissed by the grower as
only the problem of a student, a "beard," a rabble-
rouser, rather than as a problem felt by the actual workers.
E answered our knock and greeted us, saying
that he was watching the T.V. coverage of the astronauts
who were, at that moment, bouncing around on the Moon,
shining brightly above our heads. He begrudgingly tore
himself away from the set and came outside to talk with
us. I briefly explained that we'd come to discuss some
problems at his brother's invitation, saying that we were
told by H that the brothers wanted to discuss all
problems with their workers.
To this, E replied by nervously clearing his
throat several times, and asked, "Where's A ,
(crew chief)1 Didn't he come'" A raised his
head a little, and replied that he was present, which
information was met by an embarrassed laugh-snort from
the grower who hadn't noticed. He was worried that his
"yes man." our crew chief, wasn't there to agree with
everything he said.
I translated as the guys, principally M , brought
up the complaint E had made about our work, and
their feelings about it. It was immediately evident that
E was going to back off on this issue. He was
surprised that we had taken it that way, and claimed that
it was only a suggestion that maybe we were slacking
off a little bit. He was quick to agree that the workers
shouldn't have to kill themselves, but added that he was
afraid that the fastest workers had slowed down to the
pace of the slowest. He named me and asked if I might
be slowing down the others. This was met by a definite
"no" by M and the others without realizing the
implications which I explained earlier. J M
said that "if he doesn't want to pay us for those hours,
tell him to forget it." E weasled a bit more,
cleared his throat some, and said that we were all good
workers, that he didn't mean to offend anyone. What
sincerity!!! It was priceless, in that it didn't cost him
one red cent!
During a pregnant silence following this drawn-out
4960
During a pregnant silence following this drawn-out
interchange, E glanced longingly at his closed screen
door, swatted a few mosquitoes, and made a few tenta-
tive "termination of conversation" gestures.
We resumed by asking again if he was going to let
us do the second hoe in the contract field. We explained
that the first hoe had been done under the assumption
that we'd be given the second. Also, M added that
he'd asked the crew chief about that at least three dif-
ferent times and that each time he was told "tiene que"
— he has to. We wouldn't have taken so much time clean-
ing bare spots in the rows, etc., if he weren't going to
do the follow-up. E disagreed with this, saying that
if that had happened then M wouldn't be working
for him very long, E felt that work is done' for the
employer according to his (employer's) specifications,
and that if an agreement cannot be reached then the
worker should go elsewhere. This attitude may be correct
and just, superficially — a very definite implication was
that the dissatisfied worker would move on and be quick-
ly replaced by another worker who would agree to con-
ditions and quite often never complain about them. Of
course, this is one of the most basic socio-economic
problems of the unorganized migrant farm force. There
always seems to be someone a little hungrier, a little
less concerned about getting a fair deal, a person willing
to sell his sweat and his backache for a few cents less.
Another point should be raised: The grower referred
to an "agreement" being reached. In this case, it's fairly
obvious that there was no "agreement" or even under-
standing or communication as to what was required, as
to what was expected. Apart from this situation — is the
"agreement" to be between the worker and the grower
or through the crew leader? Usually it is through the
crew leader who is interested, naturally, in looking out
for himself. He might be wise, just, fair, etc., and try to
obtain a good "deal" for his people; even trying, he
might be really ignorant of what twentieth century
Americans receive for their work and accept much less.
Often times he might be good-intentioned and merely in-
competent as far as negotiating working contracts, thus
not obtaining what he could for his crew. And there are
many crew chiefs, of course, who just don't recognize
that getting a good deal for their workers is in their
favor (and many times it's not!) or crew chiefs who
know that the majority of their workers would rather
make a bad deal than fight to improve, so why should
they bother.
E argued that the field was very clean and that
this was a result of this good field management and a
result of a good job by the workers in the first hoeing.
He told us that he did not want a second weeding done
at all — piece rate nor by hours — because the field was
just too clean. He informed us that if we wanted to stay
until mid-August, he could let us have the second hoe
by piece rate. At the time, of course, he knew full well
that we were already committed to leave to pick pickles
in Michigan at the end of July. This argument of "clean
field — no second hoe" is not a rare misfortune for sugar
beet workers. Many workers consider the w ages for
thinning and those for weeding together: $15.50 plus
$10.00. Usually the second hoeing is done over the entire
acreage in the last three or four days whereas the first
hoe would take five or six weeks. Prohibiting the worker
from the second hoeing would cut off 40% of his earn-
ings, but normally less than 10"/. of the total working
time would be the equivalent (rather not equivalent, but
corresponding) reduction.
E (grower) next told us that we earned very good
money on the first hoeing and that as far he he could
see we had no claim to a second-hoe piece rate on
grounds of "balancing" the wages of the first job. He
said, as a generality, that we were making $30.00 or
two-acres per day. This was false and was negated by
the workers. Only two days of the approximately four-
teen days in this field did several of the younger men
do the claimed two acres per day. When they did, it was
a very long and very killing day for them too. But, as
I say, these few men on these few days were the excep-
tion, not the rule and would not have been able to do
even half of that work if one of the growers had been
prowling around looking for weeds and counting the
number of plants per hoe-length.
E then followed by saying frankly that he never
promised us the second weeding and that we never asked.
Never asked HIM is right; but his agent, the crew
leader, was asked several times! Apparently, he wasn't
too comfortable with this statement and quickly, vainly
reached for another support for his position. He called
the present season a "whole new ball game" because
of his new electronic eye beet thinner. By doing this he
attempted to disprove the worker's claim of "tradition-
ally" doing the second weeding by piece rate on the
same acreage where the first operation was performed
by piece rate. He cited his letter to the crew leader who
wasn't able to come to beets this year, but sent his family
and crew under his young brother-in-law which stated
that the brothers had bought the thinner and planned
for the labor to work in conjunction with the machine at
an hourly rate of pay. Fine. It does appear to be a new
ball game, thus invalidating the "traditional". But for
the fact that the field under question could not be worked
by the new machine, thus throwing it back to the same,
customary, dual hand operation!
Also, apparently to break the workers' "traditional"
claim, he recalled an example of three years past when
the second weeding was done by hours in one field al-
though it was a piece-rate thinning operation. He didn't
go into the details very explicitly. From the workers
who were there, I learned that it was an extremely
dirty, weedy field at the time of the second hoe because
an excessive amount of rain had fallen over a several
week period after the thinning operation had been com-
pleted. Under these conditions the second operation
would have required at least as much work, if not more,
than the first hoeing. For this reason, the crew chief
arranged for the crew to work by the hour. This case
is the only exception that E brought up.
With this, an already positioned impasse was reached.
There was a strong feeling of tension hanging like a
thick fog all around the small group standing there in
the dark. E made some nervous throat noises,
nervously swatted at mosquitoes and finally broke the
silence. He then made a few friendly gestures, hoped
there were no hard feelings and proffered his hand to
M , who had done a good part of the speaking. M
stood with his arms crossed, looking grimly to one side,
clearly displeased, disgusted with the shabby offer of
"friendship" which the grower was presenting to him.
The painted smile faded quickly from E face, but
the hand did not drop. M glanced at it, and grasped
it looking down at the ground.
I looked up at the moon, half- hidden behind some
fleecy clouds and thought about the two men walking
on the moon at that moment. And I thought about what
4961
had just transpired between men on a sugarbeet farm,
and I wanted not to believe the incongruousness of the
two. But I had to, as do you, because it was, and is,
our American reality.
Epilogue
On reaching our labor camp several minutes later,
there was a short rehash of what had gone on between
ourselves and the growers. Disgust of E and his
half-lies was evidenced with a resigned feeling of having
"lost".
At one point in the discussion the two youngest mem-
bers of tie group (fourteen and sixteen years old)
showed their complete ignorance, and lack of under-
standing of the problem. One spoke up saying that we
"shouldn't expect something for nothing" and the other
agreed with him. This was no surprise for the rest,
coming from these two, and they were vehemetly told
they didn't know what they were talking about and that
it'd be wise for them to keep their mouths shut. Sad
evidence of the fact that among the very workers them-
selves there are a few with no conscience, no sense of
justice and injustice who jeer and scorn those who do
realize, and even though weakly, try to correct the bad
situations.
Monday, the following day, the entire crew returned
to the field nearby where we had worked Saturday. We
finished up in the afternoon around 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday morning we glimpsed E at the camp who
talked briefly with J , came over to the cabin where
the five singles live and told us that we, and a recently
arrived family, were to go hoe soy beans at a nearby
farm. The farmer had asked E to send some labor
over to help out when he could. J told us the pay
rate and how to get there and we said okay. As she
walked away, I called to her to ask where the rest of
the people were going to work. She kept walking.
Several minutes later we drove in M car, accom-
panied by the family's pick-up, to the bean field. I told
the other guys that we could talk with the man in the
employment office about our problem with E and
the large field and that he might be able to help out.
J , M and I got back into the car to do that and
also, to check the number of rows M and his
brothers had done in the first section of the large field
because there was a discrepancy between his number
and that which J had recorded. We drove to the
large field and quickly found out where the rest of the
crew went to work ! Two days after E told us there
would not be a second weeding by piece-rate nor by
hours, he sent the crew down to work the same field
by hours. And we also knew exactly why E specified
that the five solos go work a couple miles away in an-
other farmer's soybeans. He knew very well that we'd
never enter that field to work by the hour because it
was a crooked deal against the people. We weren't
told where the other people would be working because
he feared that we might convince them not to do it
either. So we were cleverly placed in the dark, thus
nicely preventing any action which might have been
taken on our part.
We quickly resolved the discrepancy on M total
and were watched closely by the rest of the crew as we
counted off and established the position of his section.
There was some bitter shouting back and forth over
the work they were doing and why it shouldn't be done.
Several answered: "We're being paid the same as yester-
day where you worked!" The majority, though, seemed
to be working with heads somewhat shamefully lowered.
Feeling our anguish, anger, and separation bear down
on us. we quickly drove off. We headed for the town
several miles away, to talk with the employment official
Some of the problems concerned with this are:
(1) neither J nor M speaks more than a
few words of English and would never have been
able to explain the problem without a translator.
(2) their feeling was that since the other people
would continue to work and not complain, our
effort and voice would not count.
(3) inexperience in dealing with official or govern-
ment agencies and the resulting fear and un-
certainty on their part.
(4) never having been helped by the "Law" or the
government before, and knowing it only through,
and as, traffic laws, police, and taxes, they would
not have thought of seeking help and doubted
they would be helped anyway.
(5) a culturally-based pride in self-dependence and a
similar semi-taboo against seeking "outside" help
for what are considered to be personal problems
is another deterrent to what would be considered
by most other American citizens to be a normal
recourse if faced with such a problem.
In addition to the above listed problems is the simple
but vital one of where to go to find the person or
agency. In town I did not know where the employment
office was located and we just looked for a sign. When
M saw a sign saying "Employment Office" on a
plant building he turned in there. He, for lack of
knowledge, thought any employment office could help
us or would listen to the problem. I inquired of a lady in-
side where we could find the State Office, and she di-
rected us to a small hotel in town. There we found an
elderly lady behind the desk sorting mail. Upon inquiry
she replied that she was the local clerk of the State
Office. I explained briefly that we wished to speak with
someone about a labor problem on a nearby farm where-
upon she took out her Employment Office folder to try
and find when the field representative was scheduled
to visit the area. Not finding that, I asked the location
and phone number of the main office in that area. This
was located about thirty-five miles away. I talked with
M and J to see if they were willing to drive
over. M and I dropped J off at the soybean
field and drove to the office to talk with the director,
a Mr. T . He listened quite amiably as we briefly
described the situation. He told us that he could not do
anything to help us and suggested that I call im-
mediately the American Crystal Sugar Company field
man in our area. Mr. T gave me the man's name and
phone number and offered his phone so that I get in
touch right away. The field man, was not home so I
outlined the situation for his wife who promised that
her husband would stop by at seven that evening.
M felt discouraged at this point, even more so
than earlier, but still held more hope than I that the
field man would correct the problem or at least talk
with the grower about resolving the dispute. We talked
some about the field man's job, his duties, etc., and
considered the fact that the brothers grow quite a large
amount of sugar beets and are better "farm managers"
— with resultant better beet crops — than any of the
other growers we worked for briefly in that area. For
these reasons, I felt pessimistic about our chances of
actually achieving a resolution of this unfair stand on
the part of the grower.
4962
In the evening we were told that the fieldman had
arrived while M and I were in town, had left, and
then came back around twenty minutes later, after we'd
arrived. The field man and I, surrounded by five to
six of the workers, had a long conversation about the
problem. From the beginning it was made clear that the
fieldman either could not or would not take the initiative
to attempt to correct the situation. The American Crystal
Sugar field man impressed me as being intelligent and
sincere and a very good analyst of beet-related migrant
problems. He explained the rationale for many migrant
problems and for our own in particular. Due to his
allegiance to his employer, American Crystal Sugar
Company, it seems he was unable to use his rational
explanations and analyses as a basis for a moral, ethical
judgment. Rationally, man's exploitation of weaker men
may be explained into eternity with every point having
its counterpoint. But morally this exploitation can and
must be condemned and corrected without fail if we are
to live our American ideals of truth, liberty, and
justice.
Approximately three days later we received our checks
from the grower brothers for work we had done. Open
anger and hostility were not evidenced in our brief con-
tact with him as we signed papers and figured the
accounts. The solos only felt pity, digust, and resent-
ment towards him for what he had done, for what he
had caused us to go through. Although the grower
usually tries to make sure at the end of the season that
his best workers will return the next year, he had enough
sense not to mention it to us. He would've been laughed
at and jeered.
J informed me about a month later that her father
had received a letter from the brothers thanking him
very much for sending his family and crew to their beets.
It said that the work done, as always, was excellent and
that the season had gone very well, with no problems
at all.
J
creible !
and I smiled sadly at each other. Esto es in-
PART T
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LEGAL ADVISORY BOARD
Gary Bellows, Esq.
Western Law Center
UCLA
Los Angeles, California
Edgar Cahn, Esq.
Citizens Advocacy Program
Johnathan B. Chase, Esq.
University of Colorado Law School
Boulder, Colorado
Edward Sparer, Esq.
Tale University Law School
New Haven, Conn.
Joseph Segor, Esq.
So. Florida Migrant Legal Service Program
395 Northwest First Street
Miami, Florida
Pete Tijerina, Esq.
302 International Building
San Antonio, Texas
Mr. Stanley Zinsnerman, Esq.
N.Y.U. School of Law 42
Washington Square South
New York, New York 10003
PARA-PROFESSIONALS
(Colorado Itinerate Tutors)
Edward Klump
Porf irio Garza
Lupe Rivera
Reynaldo De La Cruz
Rene Rivera
4963
Much of the information serving as the base of this report was obtained
through the cooperation of the Migrant Research Project's grantees. Their
participation is gratefully acknowledged.
LIST OF GRANTEES
Mr. Joel Cooper
Bootheel Agricultural Service, Inc.
Cooperative
Post Office Box 233
Hayti, Missouri
Mr. Porfirio Garza
Citizens in Action Club
Post Office Box 397
Asherton, Texas 78827
Mr. Reynaldo De La Cruz
Colonias Del Valle
Post Office Boot 907
San Juan, Texas 78589
Mr. Ralph Rivera
Colorado Migrant Council
665 Grant Street
Boulder, Colorado
Mr. Albert Lee
Comnunity Civic Workers of Ismokalee, Inc.
Post Office Box 195
Iamolalee, Florida
Mr. McKinley Martin, Project Director
Delta Opportunities Corporation
Post Office Box 478
Sligo Road
Greenville, Mississippi
Mr. Tomas Villanueva
Farm Workers Co-op
Post Office Box 655
Topenish, Washington 98948
Mr. Elijah Boone
Glade Citizens Association
132 Southwest Avenue B
Belle Glade, Florida
Mr. Frank Cobb
Grand County Comnunity Action Council
Post Office Box 1136
Ephrata, Washington 98823
Mr. Lauro Garcia
Guadelupe Organization, Inc.
8810 South 56th Street
Guadalupe, Arizona
Mr. Alex Me re u re
Hone Education Livelihood Program
131 Adams North Bast
Albuquerque, Hew Mexico
Mr. Cayetano Santiago, Director
Illinois Migrant Council
1307 South Wabash Street
Chicago, Illinois
Mr. L. H. Anderson
Lowndes County Christian Movement
Post Office Box 205
Haynesville, Alabama 3604*0
Mrs. Shirley Sandage
Migrant Action Program
Post Office Box 778
Mason City, Iowa
Mr. Clayton S. Mills
Migrant Health Project
Guadalupe House
Elm Acre
Endeavor, Wisconsin 53939
Mr. Walter Brudnowski
Migrant Health Project
Box 310
Wautoma, Wisconsin 54982
Mr. Robert Clark, Director
Mileston Co-op
Post Office Boot 184
Lexington, Mississippi
Mr. James Boylson
Monterey County Anti-Poverty
Coordinating Council, Inc.
153 West Oabilon S reet
Salinas, California 93901
Mr. Rudolpho Juarez
Organized Migrants in Community Action
132 Southwest Avenue B
Belle Glade, Florida
Mr. Paul F. Wilson
Polk County Christian Migrant
Ministry Association
1600 West Lake Parker Drive
lakeland, Florida 33801
4964
List of Grantees (cont'd)
Mrs. Alice Santana
Project Prep
P. 0. Banc 12
Watsonville, California 95016
Mr. Jorge T. Acevado
Santa Clara County Economic
Opportunity Coumission
40 North Fourth Street
San Jose, California 95112
Mr. John Brown
Southeast Alabama Self -Help Association
Post Office Box 871
Tuskegee, Alabama 36088
Mr. Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
Southeast Louisiana Self -Help
Housing, Inc.
Post Office Drawer F
Reserve, Louisiana 7008/*
Mr. Gene Robles
Tri-Cities Latin American Association
624 North Adams
Pasco, Washington
Mr. Jesus Salas
United Migrant Opportunity Service
809 West Greenfield Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204
Mr. Tom Jones
Utah Migrant Council
c/o Center for Study of Social Policy
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr. James Schrift
United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc.
113 South Lansing Street
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48588
Mr. Sam Martinez, Director
Valley Council for Community Action
Post Office Box 1665
Yakima, Washington 98901
Mr. Julian Herrara
United Farm Workers
8603 South Hixie
Erie, Michigan
Mr. Avelardie Debordo
Itinerant Workers
665 Grant Street
Boulder, Colorado
Mr. James Mason
Migrants in Action
Fort Lupton, Colorado
Miss Mary Lanzinger, Director
Catholic Better Community Development
Commission, Inc.
1601 Jefferson Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43624
Mr. Albert Coleman, Executive Director
Northeast Indiana Migrant Council, Inc.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804
Mr. Gary B. Leishman, Administrative Director
No. Utah Community Action Program
179 Main
Logan, Utah 84321
4965
The project reported herein was performed pursuant
to a grant from the Office of Economic Opportunity,
Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed herein are
those of the author* and should not be construed
as representing the opinions or policy of any agency
of the United States Government.
(Photos from "Child of Hope" by Shirley M. Sandac,e,
and Joe Moore Stewart have been made available
for publishing in this report through the courtesy of
A. S. Barnes Publishing Company, Cranbury, New
Jersey.)
•Migrant Research Project
36-513 O - 71 - pt. 7B
4966
Sam Schulman, "The Future of Migrants," East Coast Migrant Health Conference,
(Orlando, Florida), 19$8.
THE FUTURE OF MIGRANTS
It might be well to state at the outset that the future of
the seasonal agricultural migrant and his dependents is no
future at all. That is, within the next few years the migrant
population, as we now know it, will be substantially changed in
both function and status, and that almost all of the present
protagonists in this annual mobile tragedy will disappear from
the agricultural scene. Those in the helping professions who
are dedicated, however minimally, to meeting some of the many
needs of agricultural migrants will turn to other tasks and may,
indeed, meet again some of the same people they now serve in
other roles or other guises. The human needs of these laborers
attached to agriculture and their dependents will, in large
measure, still be evident and the helping professionals may
still be in the unenviable position of still trying to meet
them.
It would certainly be nice if — through the manipulation of
information to which I alone were privy — I could predict that
some marvelous new industries were to spring suddenly upon the
national horizon that would demand the spec,ial skills possessed
by our migrant population, and that these new industries were
to sap the ranks of migrant labor by offering its members
decent wages and a way of life far superior to that which they
presently possess, and that future contacts between the helping
professionals and these ex-migrants (which I have mentioned
previously) were to be at bridge parties, country club socials,
or just visiting in tidy suburban homes. No, this is not what
I mean at all. "What I speak of is a striking change that will
diminish greatly the numbers of migrant workers. Their "special
skills" will not be in great demand for, in truth, they do not
have any "special skills", and, if helping professionls meet
them again, they shall be met as ex-migrants living out their
lives as dregs in the shameful corners of deprivation of our
country which are termed urban "ghettos."
Sam Schulman, Ph.D. , Visiting Professor of Sociology, University
of Florida
A special vote of thanks is here given to Dr. T. Lynn Smith, of
The University of Florida, mentor and colleague, who critically
reviewed an earlier version of this paper.
4967
I shall attempt to explain and elaborate this rather dire
prediction during the time allotted to me.
Any attempt at prediction involves making some guesses
about what will happen in the future given a variation in one
or more, or a complex of, factors which pertain to a situation.
Even the most elaborate and sophisticated computerized simula-
tion models must ultimately be based upon the assumed projection
of factor variations. These variations, in turn, are not
projected haphazardly or capriciously — they are based upon the
knowledge of past and present experiences and trends. When,
thus, I presume to guess about what shall happen tomorrow I do
so on the basis of what has happened thus far, what is happening
now, and the logical extension of these events into the future. •
Further, if all of the pertinent information were at
our fingertips and could be easily quantified, the predictions I
would make could be transferred into fairly exact numerical
equivalents. I should be able to tell you, within expected
statistical limits, not only what will happen but when and how
many people will be involved. This is not our case, however.
Much of the information is not readily accessible, it is not
easily quantifiable, and that which is quantifiable or quantified
is often fragmentary if not downright erroneous. (We do not have
accurate information on just how many migrants-plus-dependents
there are in the several streams. "Reliable" estimates vary from
one to three million!) The predictions I make today are, thus,
qualitative rather than quantitative, general rather than specific.
(I think that anyone who is aware of the factors would be able to
tell us what shall happen. These factors which allow for predic-
tion are -neither hidden nor complex.) I am sure that, when all
truly reliable data are assembled, these predictions will be
validated.
People are not born to the status of seasonal migratory
agricultural laborers in our society although, it is true, cir-
cumstances often make this status an unavoidable alternative for
many Americans. Like any other "voluntary" situation there are
factors which attract and retain recruits and other factors which
repel potential recruits or prompt their rejection once incorpo-
rated. (In the literature on migration and mobility as social
phenomena these are often referred to as "pull" and "push
factors . )
If we were in laboratory or classroom we could place the
factors pertinent to migratory labor in two parallel columns
so that we could gain a macroscopic view of the total situation.
In the case before us, however, we would see under the
"attraction-retention" column very few entries, while over on the
"repulsion-rejection" side our column would be extremely crowded.
Let us face the fact that agricultural seasonal labor has little
4968
to recommend it. As Truman Moore, writing in the Atlantic Monthly,
said: "The migrants who follow the harvest are the only people
in America who are desperate enough for this work to take it."1
Other than the presumed handful of "footloose and happy fellows"
who "get their kicks by following the crops" — who are more
mythological, I would think, than real, and who are gross ration-
alizations in the minds of the guilt-ridden or romantic — there
are very few others who relish the idea of migrant labor. It is
far from an attractive way of life. It is, in most cases, an
only or last alternative which can promise nothing more than a
low wage for the rudest form of manual labor. It is "making a
living" or "scraping by" and little more than that. It might be
said, in fact, that — as seen by the migrant — anything else
that would give a living wage would be preferable to the
uncertainties and iniquities of migrant farm work. Last week
I had the opportunity of chatting with several Mexican-Americans
previously in the East Coast stream, now in a retraining program
in Florida (directed by my brother, Mr. George Schulman) .
Their new "careers" would make them equivalents of apprentice
meat-cutters or food-handlers. Said one of these, "This thing
we are now doing. This learning a way to feed my family and
stay put. This is like a gift from God."
On the other hand, our crowded "repulsion-rejection" column
lists .almost innumerable factors which do not attract migrant
labor or which impel workers to leave the streams. There are so
many that it simplifies matters to lump them into composites
or clusters: socio-cultural factors, psychological factors, and
economic factors. These three clusters, as well as all of the
factors encompassed by them, are intimately inter- related,
although distinct from one another. They combine to form a
total negative profile of agricultural migrancy.
The socio-cultural factors are the familiar composite
face of rural poverty. Its specific dimensions we know well.
There are constant lacks of all things which are necessary to
feel accepted, and to be accepted, as respected citizens of a
society. There is too little income, education, intellectual
stimulation, proper food and nutrition, political participation,
wholesome recreation, effective sanitation. Housing is rudi-
mentary, if not primitive, and is, by any measure, inadequate.
There are too few well-integrated families, and there are too
many babies. As my wife — who is an instructor in public health
nursing — puts it: "It is a life of one sorrow after another."
To this face of rural poverty we add a mobility factor. Not
only is this poverty, but it is fluid, transportable, and
transported. It is the lowest echelon of rural poverty, for
it is rootless: it "belongs" nowhere.
Consider the psychological cluster of factors. These
rural mobile poor are alienated from the mainstream of American
life physically and psychologically. They are only passing
4969
witnesses of what goes on in the villages, towns, and cities
along their routes. Strangers on the road, they are even
strangers in their own home areas where seldom do they qualify,
legally or socially, as permanent residents. The communities
to which they come can be said to tolerate them temporarily but
they are not accepted. Note how they are welcomed as peak har-
vest approaches, but note, too, how unwelcome they are once the
crop is in. "Ignorant Negroes" or "Ignorant Mexicans" are useful
for some weeks, or even months, during the year, but who wants
such permanent ignorant additions to a community? Often,
while on "the season," crew leaders manipulate the ignorance of
their workers for their own convenience and profit, and not a
few growers are guilty of abiding such abuse, perhaps even pro-
fitting from it themselves. Alienation, toleration, rejection,
repression, and exploitation cannot but be accounted as factors
which make the way of the agricultural migrant unattractive.
Low wages have already been mentioned as a repelling
factor, but they bear mention again within' the specifically
economic sphere. The cheapness of their labor enhances the
utility of migrants for growers. Needless. to say, if all other
factors were kept constant, but better wages were available to
migrant workers in other parts of the economrc sector, the ranks
of the seasonal agricultural labor force would be dramatically
depleted, and probably overnight. (Or, on the other hand, if
the mobility factor were mitigated and low wages were to remain
constant, there would also be an exodus from this segment of the
labor force. In "settling-out" areas I have visited in the
North, many ex-migrants are faring no better economically than
they did while in the stream but, at least, they are establishing
some roots.)
Let me now come to another economic factor — a special
factor which calls for elaboration — which has already made some
negative impact on migrancy and which will make an even greater
impact within the next few years: technological displacement.
The American farm operator is typically not prone to
extravagance, undue experimentation for the love of trying new
things, radicalism in change, or indulgences in frills for the
sake of making neighbors envious. Rural life tends toward the
conservative and, although the gap between farmer and urbanite
has narrowed considerably in recent years, the former's conserva-
tism remains a social and political reality. Moreover, he is
fast becoming an agricultural businessman, and his economically
productive activities may be accurately referred to as "agri-
business." As a businessman he is likewise not prone to
extravagances which, directly or indirectly, do not add to his
margin of profit. It is a known fact that marginal agricultural
producers have gradually been forced out of agribusiness and
that, each year, fewer- operators control larger enterprises.
4970
(In addition, more direct association between farm operators and
city-based entrepreneurs, uniting large-scale agriculture with
large-scale commerce and industry, is a growing trend. The
farming policies affecting thousands of acres of cropland around
Immokalee, Florida, as an example, are made by a board of
directors in New York. This board not only governs the production
of tons of perishable agricultural products, but is also involved
in industrial pursuits, one of these the inundation of the
American scene with a popular brand of carbonated beverage.)
The successful farm operator is one who is competitive in agri-
business. He also tends to be a specialist, dedicating the
greater part of his large acreages to single enterprises: beans,
beets, cherries, strawberries, corn, wheat, beef, what have you.
Or, he may have large sums of money and wide acreages devoted
to "tried and true" combined specialties such as corn and hogs,
or rice and beef. The farm operator does not hold his enterprise
together by wishing and gambling, but by hard work, sharp
management, and large capital outlay.
Let us look at this farm operator, now, in summary. He is
conservative, an agribusinessman, more than likely a specialist.
He is neither visionary nor a dreamer; he is the essence of
practicality. With such a group as principal players in American
agriculture, how impressive and surprising are predictions of
"radical" change from hard-headed agribusinessmen about what their
immediate future portends.
In November, 1966, the Farm Journal, the most important
of magazines reflecting the views of the modern independent
American farmer, ran a series of short articles on "Farming in
1976," a decade from the date of publication. The authors were
not government officials or university professors but people
who lived and worked on farms. At times it was obvious that
the authors were writing out of their own experience, at other
times they echoed the points-of-view of larger groups with
similar experiences. •
4
Ervin Neyhouse, an Indiana grower, wrote:
"The bulk of fruits and vegetables even for the fresh
market, will be planted and harvested by "robots" —
sophisticated machines requiring skilled operators.
Apples, which have long defied mechanical harvesting,
will probably succumb to the machine by 1976.
Plant varieties will be developed which are more
adaptable to machine picking. Some varieties will
be changed to ripen at the same time; sometimes
only the size or shape of the plant will be altered.
By 1976 you might be able to spray a tree to keep it
at a desired height, or spray to get ripe fruit at
the same time. You'll see more trellising and
training of plants to make harvesting easier."
4971
Gu's Evans, a Mississippi farmer, stated:
"Vegetable growers agree that if a crop isn't mechanized,
we won't grow it. Vegetable harvesting will be largely
mechanized.
Fruits will also be harvested by machines by 1976. Some
fresh-market fruit may be hand-picked, but from a moving
platform. Trees will be close-spaced and shaped to
provide the maximum surface for fruit growth and a
uniform face to the mechanical or human picker."
Evans reported another farmer saying, "We've got to grow
fewer crops so we can grow more of each one and afford the machinery
it takes." A busy farm homemaker, Mrs. Mary Bumgardner of Ohio,
collating the opinions of 120 other farmers' wives, noted that
farming enterprises had to get "bigger. "
Getting bigger means more automation to most women —
with less hired help on the farm. So they see
themselves pushing buttons and handling clean,
air-conditioned, and smooth-riding farm machines.
Many believe that family members (husband and wife, if the
children are away) will do the farming with big one-trip-
over machines. One farm woman foresees .three 8-hour shifts
a day in certain peak seasons with family members taking
turns on this type of machine. Others think machinery
companies might be planting and harvesting crops for
farmers .
Some farm women see thei" husbands primarily as
managers (in perma-pressed work clothes) with part-time
help from trained agriculturists, analysts, and cus-
tom workers. "Farmers will have professional status
in another decade."
In the opinion of farm people themselves, the successful
(the average?) agribusinessman of the not-too-distant future will
Incorporate within his life pattern ever greater aspects of the
idvances brought about by technological development. The most
Important of these technological advances is a complex, the focal
entity of which is mechanized harvesting. The implications of
:hese growers' attitude concerning their own future for migratory
agricultural labor we shall examine in a moment. How far, we
nay ask, has mechanical harvesting already progressed?
In the United States today all grains for the commercial
narket are completely harvested by machine. Only remnants of the
farming population — usually small-scale operators and usually in
rough country — still depend upon manual field help to harvest
:otton. Bean pickers, pickle pickers, potato harvesters are
Decoming commonplace. Sugar beets which, twenty years ago, were
ilmost entirely harvested by hand are now almost exclusively
larvested by machine. Almost all the "sturdy" crops are now
within the area of competence of the machine.
4972
More impressive, however, is the progress being made with
devices for harvesting the easily injured perishable crops.
Dr. Clarence F. Kelly, Head of the Agricultural Experiment Station
of the University of California at Davis, reported the following
in August, 196
W
"Within the past five years a... dramatic advance has
taken place in... the picking of tomatoes. In Cali-
fornia, where 125,000 acres were devoted to tomato
growing, the growers used to have to recruit 40,000
workers at the season's peak to harvest the crop
by hand. Two investigators at the California
Agricultural Experiment Station at Davis — an
agricultural engineer and a plant biologist — undertook
to develop a system for mechanizing tomato picking.
They attacked the problem on two fronts. Gordie C.
Hanna, the biologist, would breed a tomato plant
designed for machine handling. The plant would bear
tomatoes that were of uniform size and all ripened
at the same time, that could easily be detached
from the vine but would not drop off prematurely,
that had a skin tough enough to withstand mechanical
handling, that would store well and that would be
pleasing to the consumer in flavor and Other quali-
ties. Coby Lorenzen, Jr., the agricultural engineer,
meanwhile would work on the design of a machine that
would harvest this tomato rapidly, efficiently and
at reasonable cost.
After 10 years of study, experiments and development
the two men achieved their objective in 196 2. The
plant was ready and so was the machine: a harvester
that cut off the plant at ground level, lifted it,
shook off the tomatoes and deposited them in a bin in
which they were hauled off to the processing plant...
The tomato "combine" won remarkably rapid acceptance.
Within three years this machine was harvesting 24% of
the California tomato crop; last year 800 of the
machines were available and picked almost 80% of the
crop; this fall, with at least four major manufacturers
now producing machines, a large percentage of the
tomatoes grown in the U. S. for processing will be
harvested by machine.
A rapid trip through the Agricultural Index of the past
four or five years shows us that even the most difficult crops
to harvest are being "programmed" for machine harvesting. There
is not one major crop in the United States that has not extracted
an investment of time, energy, and large amounts of money, all
devoted to discovering or refining mechanical harvesting devices
specific to it. The technical problems of mechanized harvesting
4973
diminish before the onslaught of the applied scientist. Machines
can now be designed for economy, delicacy of handling, size
grading, even for color sensitivity. Kelly notes that researchers
have logged the fact that a prune-tree vibrator (to shake the ripe
fruit onto a padded catching frame) does better in shaking down a
tree at 400 cycles per minute and two-inch amplitude, than at
1,100 c.p.m. and a one-inch amplitude. The fact logged, the
machine will be designed and built accordingly.
The farmers' predictions for 1976 are fast becoming realities.
Producers of farm machinery, governmental and educational agencies,
and farm operators themselves have teamed together to create
agricultural technical "miracles" in rapid succession. This is
hardly the case of scientific innovation for the sake of the sheer
joy of discovery — far from it. The demand is great for these
advances because they follow hard upon the trend towards a
businesslike agriculture, and because they have proven to be
eminently economically feasible. Not too many generations ago,
thousands upon thousands of migrant agricultural workers reaped
wheat by hand through the great wheat belt stretching north from
Texas into western Canada. Today the image of hand harvesting
of wheat is associated in our minds with people . in those parts
of the world that are "underdeveloped". Hand^reaping is no
longer a factor in American wheat production, for the economic
appropriateness of the machine is so obvious to all. Let us look
at some other crops, only now on the verge of this mechanical
revolution.
The Blackwelder Pickle Harvester is a once-over machine that
is designed to harvest pickle, that vary from 7/16 to 2 3/8
inches in diameter and does a better job of picking the smaller
fruit than manual pickers. It reduces the harvesting labor
force by 90%. 6 Kelly reports a snap-bean harvester with even
greater economic potential. This machine will decrease the cost
of harvesting snap-beans by 75% as against manual labor on a
moderate-sized farm (200 acres) , and by 89% on a large-sized
farm (500 acres) . The machine itself is paid for in five years.
Further, the snap-bean harvester does ninety times more work
per hour than a manual picker. In effect, at an optimal rate
of production, this machine does the work of ninety people. '
A snap-bean area of large farms which today employs 5,000 seasonal
workers at peak harvest could reduce this number to about 165
men working fifty-five machines in three-man crews. The need
for almost 5,000 "stoop" laborers disappears. And what of the
other crop-types that still require hand picking? What will
happen to migrant laborers who pick cherries in the Traverse
City area of Michigan when an economically feasible cherry-
picker is perfected, or in Orange County, Florida, when a truly
adequate citrus harvester hits the groves? Even now there is
an experimental citrus harvester that- can clear a tree in two
to three minutes. The advent of the citrus harvester, now on
the verge of commercial production, led the St. Petersburg
Times on March 11, 1968, to predict the displacement of 12,000 g
seasonal laborers in central Florida within the next five years.
4974
A more-than-likely conservative estimate, given the present
trend of technological advance in mechanization, is that 90%
of the seasonal agricultural labor force in the United States will
be sluffed off in the next decade. Even if the trend is retarded,
there is bound to be a wholesale displacement of these least-
regarded farm workers during this period. The United States
Government reports a gradual dimunition of all farm employment
over the years as well as a continuing reduction in the number
of seasonal workers: 9 and this before the major impact of
the mechanical harvesting of perishable crops has taken place.
When it does take place, the migrant streams — as we have known
them — will have changed in composition and function or will no
longer exist.
In constructing an economic impetus model for mechanization
we must perforce face another reality. Impelling the grower
towards mechanization are any inputs which increase his cost
of production. The present moves towards labor unionization of
migrant workers which may result in better wages is, indeed, such
a prod. Legislation designed to force growers to provide
better housing facilities for their seasonal workers, to guarantee
them the protection of the law, to improve their social well-
being if any of these mean that the grower* will have to dig
deeper into his pocket, the greater his demand for mechanical
replacements of no longer docile, tractable., unprotected, and
ignorant workers.
The technological displacement of vast number of people in
the migrant streams does not end our story. There is more to
predict. What will happen to these one-to- three million rural
people who live and move in poverty? An oversimplified answer
is that this particular form of mobility wiil cease while the
poverty continues. Under present national conditions, is there
any other logical alternative?
i
The rural hinterland that has spawned the migrant cannot
reabsorb him. As the eminent rural sociologist, Dr. T. Lynn
Smith, has carefully documented, 10 and as those familiar with
the American rural sector know from experience, our decreasing
rural population represents, above all, an exodus of marginal
and sub-marginal competitors from agriculture. There really is
little use in agriculture — as in any other business — for those
who cannot produce competitively. In the Deep South we have
an excellent illustration of this. The small cotton operator
who could not compete with large-scale growers was squeezed out
of his farm. He joined the ranks of the sharecroppers and
wagehands who were still of use in a quasiservile capacity in
the cotton fields. In the past two decades, the sharecropper
himself has been squeezed out by the mechanical cotton picker.
Some former "croppers" have taken to itinerant farm work and
are members of the East Coast stream: most, however, have gone
4975
to areas of greater hope and some opportunity, the southern cities
and, in ever • increasing numbers, to northern and western cities.
When the migrant streams diminish even the wandering farmhand
will be squeezed out of the hinterland. There is no place for
him in the rural areas that have already rejected him once or
twice further up the tenure ladder.
With mechanization certainly a small number of workers
will be retained in rural areas. Someone has to operate and
maintain the machines of agribusiness but, we must bear in mind
that these functions require a high level of skill. The migrant
worker will rarely qualify on this account: he is unskilled or,
at best, a low-order semi-skilled laborer. What we shall
probably see, as noted previously by Mrs. Bumgardner in the
Farm Journal, is family operation of family-owned equipment.
Or, perhaps, we shall see a new breed of soft-crop contract
machine crews similar to those who harvest the bulk of America's
wheat on the western plains: well-paid, skilled, many of these
owners of the machinery they use. It may be that manufacturers
themselves will sell the services of skilled operators along
with the rental- of machines which they produce. We may, indeed,
have a new kind of migrant harvesting perishable crops — a mobile
technician—but he will bear little resemblance to the stoop-
labor migrant whose troubled future now concerns us.
The unschooled and unskilled migrant, unabsorbable in
mechanized agriculture, is equally unabsorbable in the little
villages and towns which service the open country: he has
nothing to offer them. They, too, are losing population which
they cannot effectively emplc . The only places which may not
wish to, but can, and must, make room for future incursions of
the squeezed-out segments of American rural life are the cities.
In particular it shall be the slums of our cities, already
congested and constant targets for the hinterland's excess poor,
which shall absorb the cast-offs from the migrant streams. The
"Mexican towns" in places like San Antonio", Los Angeles, Toledo,
and Detroit, and the beehive black "ghettos" throughout the
nation, shall continue to bear the brunt of the influxes of the
rural poor. Slum existence is the future for our migrants and
their children.
This is a dismal picture. How very much I should like
to be proven wrong. It seems inevitable that this sad predic-
tion shall be a sadder reality in the next few years. Certainly —
assuming that such a prediction may be accepted as a guide-for-
action—attempts can be made to avert even further deprivation
for three million already-deprived people. Great amounts of
effort and expenditures are called for in our present "war
against poverty" which, in large measure, have not been forth-
coming: this is the most understaffed, underfinanced, and under-
equipped war our country has ever waged. The future plight of
the migrants and their families is just one more rag-tail battle
4976
t to be fought. Who shall fret about the re-education and
Location of people who are, at least/ minimally gainfully em-
Dyed when right now in the core areas of almost every American
by the shame of slum life is still evident, poverty still
rives, and our present war goes on un-won!
4977
Footnotes
1 Truman Moore, "Slaves We Rent — The Shame of American Farming,"
The Atlantic Monthly, May, 1965, as reprinted in Herman P.
Miller, ed., Poverty American Style (Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing. Company, Inc. , 1967), p. 137.
2 Cf . James H. Copp, "The Future of Rural Sociology in an
Industrialized Society," p. 344, and Olaf F. Larson and Everett
M. Rogers, "Rural Society in Transition," pp. 42-53, in James H.
Copp , ed . , Our Changing Rural Society; Perspectives and Trends
(Ames , Iowa! Iowa State University Press, 1964).
3 Personal communication from the South Florida Migrant Legal
Services, Immokalee, Florida.
4 All citations from the Farm Journal are from the series of short
articles on "Farming in 1976," pp. 40-46 of the November, 1966,
" issue of that magazine.
Clarence F. Kelly, "Mechanical Harvesting," Scientific American,
217:57-58, August, 1967.
6 "How Many Pickles Will This Pickle Harvester Pick?" Agricultural
Engineering, 48:452, August, 1967.
Kelly, op.cit. , p. 59.
"The Orange Revolution" (Editorial) St. Petersburg Times
March 11, 1968.
9 From Table 2: Labor Force Statistics on Farm and Nonfarm Labor,
p. 784, in Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor,
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Congress, 1st
Session (Washington: U.S.G.P.O., 1968).
10 T. Lynn Smith, The Sociology of Rural Life (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1953), pp. 174-175, 177-179.
4978
Senator Mondale. We now stand adjourned until your next hearing.
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at the call of the Chair.)
O
AMHERST COLLEGE LIBRARY
DATE DUE
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11